sign in sign up
<<
Home , Administrative division, Bagrationovsk, Baltiysk, Boris Gryzlov, Chernyshevskoye, Federal capital

41

A cAptive islAnD bETWEEn AnD ThE EU

Jadwiga Rogoża, Agata Wierzbowska-Miazga, Iwona Wiśniewska NUMBER 41 WARSAW JULY 2012

A captive island Kaliningrad between Moscow and the EU

Jadwiga Rogoża, Agata Wierzbowska-Miazga, Iwona Wiśniewska © Copyright by Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia / Centre for Eastern Studies

Content editors Adam Eberhardt, Marek Menkiszak

EditorS Katarzyna Kazimierska, Anna Łabuszewska

Translation Ilona Duchnowicz

Co-operation Jim Todd

Graphic design Para-buch

CHARTs, MAP, PHOTOGRAPH ON COVER Wojciech Mańkowski

DTP GroupMedia

Publisher Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, Warsaw, Phone + 48 /22/ 525 80 00 Fax: + 48 /22/ 525 80 40 osw.waw.pl

ISBN 978–83–62936–13–7 Contents

Key points /5

Introduction /8

I. KALININGRAD : A SUBJECT OR AN OBJECT oF THE F EDERATION? /9

1. THE ISLAND: Kaliningrad today /9 1.1. Kaliningrad in the legal, political and economic space of the Russian /9 1.2. Current political situation /13 1.3. The current economic situation /17 1.4. The social situation /24 1.5. Characteristics of the Kaliningrad residents /27 1.6. The ecological situation /32 2. AN AREA UNDER SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE: Moscow’s policy towards the /34 2.1. The policy of compensating for Kaliningrad’s location as an exclave /34 2.2. The policy of reinforcing social ties with the rest of /43 2.3. The policy of restricted access for foreign partners to the region /45 2.4. The policy of controlling the region’s co-operation with other /47 3. THE TWO SIDES OF THE COIN: Kaliningrad’s interests versus Moscow’s interests /53 3.1. The interests of Kaliningrad /53 3.2. Moscow’s interests with regard to Kaliningrad /55 3.3. The conflicts of interests between Kaliningrad and Moscow/ 56

II. CO-OPERATION DESPITE DIFFICULTIES: Kaliningrad And its EU /58

1. EUROPE’S PERIPHERY: The EU’s relations with the region so far /58 1.1. Kaliningrad in the ’s policy /58 1.2. Kaliningrad’s contacts with its EU neighbours /61 1.3. Economic co-operation /65 2. CO-OPERATION WITH KALININGRAD: Conclusions for EU policy /67 2.1. Co-operation at the federal level /67 2.2. Co-operation at the regional level /71

3. 2. 1. points Key garding transit and visa issues, as well as aid programmes. In the opinion the In programmes. aid as well as issues, visa and transit garding re policy, EU in question especially it adistinct makes oblast Kaliningrad Federation awhole. as Russian However,the of situation island-like the for but co-operation, one only EU’s element of with the partner relations independent not is an Union, Kaliningrad European of the perspective Poland may the contribute. From and oblast Kaliningrad between regime traffic of alocal introduction the which to travel, unrestricted ing people-to-people intensify to includ buteconomic contacts, also relations point of view, notto developonly it would Kaliningrad’s beneficial From be EU. the in neighbours their with co-operation enhance to willingness their have demonstrated public Kaliningrad in the and elites political the Both island’. tive of a‘cap akind oblast the region’sthe making is This economic potential. limited has some in cases and neighbourhood, comeEU more to the open be to desire Kaliningrad’s Russia’s to with at is odds challenge integrity privileges. However, Moscow’s could pose which to issues oversensitivity and economic aid the financial form of in receivesoblast benefits numerous the effect, In of rest Russia. itat the compensating for from separation its aimed all of first is region Moscow’s weaken. to this towards policy of rest the the with bonds its not allowing means primarily oblast ingrad of Kalin case the Federation, in which Russian of the integrity territorial the to threats potential preventing is policy regional of Russian priority Moscow. in region’s taken The are issues this mostvital sions regarding deci all , and central by the solutions and established rules the to adhere must Federation, Kaliningrad Russian of a subject the As nation. Russian of rest the the to comparison in entrepreneurship and activeness greater their and Europe towards openness their fested in identity, separate mani is of have which their asense time but same at the nation region’s Russian of the apart residents, who as perceive themselves this mindset of the affects also location on Its specific foreign co-operation. of model economy, its the focused is and on imports relies heavily which influences region location of this The ‘insular’ fact. consequences of that the all Federation, with Russian of rest the the from separated physically is it other on economic the while and framework, political legal, Russian the of it part is one onhand the situation, geopolitical ion. of special its Because Un European by the surrounded exclave aRussian is oblast Kaliningrad ------

5 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 6 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 tant for . Polandtant and impor especially is which EU, for neighbourhood the something safe and astable would contribute building to states member EU neighbouring the in those to similar it standards up living to bringing and veloping oblast the need resolved to be which of ecology. together, area the for in De example neighbours its with issues practical numerous share still EU, it will the and by surrounded remain will region This parties. both to would beneficial be region’s feasible this to is and response in aspirations oblast Kaliningrad in Union’s European the report, more intensive authors activity ofof this the - - Morskoye Nida Zone of restricted access for security reasons* Frontier zone Pagegiai

Gambling and recreation zone near Panemune Tourism and recreation zone on the Curonian Neman Jurbarkas SowieckSovetsk Planned location of the Baltic Nuclear Power Plant TEC-2 heat and power plant High-voltage lines Yantarny

Baltic Sea Kaliningrad Puck Pregola TEC-2 Strait of Baltiysk Angarapa Gusev

Gdynia Bay of Gdansk MamonovoMamonowo Spit Gronowo Gdansk Zheleznodorozhny Glomno Gorowo Goldap Ilawieckie Nowy Dwor Pieniezno Gdanski Wegorzewo

Vistula Elblag Orneta Lidzbark W. Ketrzyn Olecko Paslek Gizycko Malbork Roads Dobre Miasto Railroads Mragowo Rivers Elk Road border crossing points Railway border crossing points

* such zones are also located on the Curonian Spit (although they have not been marked)

Map. and Polish covered by the local border traffic regime

7 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 8 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 1 exclave Russian the oblast, grad of Kalinin features special publication present to is the of this The purpose I both the federal and regional levels. regional and federal the both at contacts using region, the of possible with co-operation of areas partners for recommendations EU containing achapter concludes Thehood. with text neighbour region’s EU its its the with outlines contacts port and co-operation re thethem. Thesecond of section between conflicts the indicates and centre the and federal of region this of interests the specifies third the and region, the Moscow’s assesses second chapter the oblast, towards policy Kaliningrad in situation economicandsocial political, current the characterises chapter first Moscow. with relations its The and Kaliningrad in situation current the cerns 1–3)section (chapters con first the parts: into two divided been has The report into account. limitations its and potential its both would take which region this and EU the between operation a model of co- intended help to is finding region this in situation current the

ntroduction Kaliningrad oblast. oblast. Kaliningrad about who write experts most do as region, this to regard ‘exclave/enclave’ with term the used have authors the text, of this Union). needs However, for the European of the spective per the (from asemi-enclave and Federation) Russian of the perspective the (from exclave semi- as a defined be should Sea, Baltic the to access has which oblast, Kaliningrad Formally, 1 inside the European Union. This analysis of analysis Union. This European the inside - - - - - revenues from taxes (these were transferred to the federal budget federal the to (these were transferred revenues taxes from direct thesometheof deprived reform of 2001, of which financial – the follows: as were oblast Kaliningrad have affected that changes legislative most important the period, been applied to Kaliningrad oblast, as to the other R other to the as oblast, appliedbeen to Kaliningrad presidentelected of R first was etc.). of taxes, Since distribution 2000, the materials, of raw extraction (for the regions concerning example, their and themselves to lobbied economic Moscow beneficial successfully and decisions in for political foreign contacts) own and their (for independence cant establishing example, enjoyingsignifi time, at that ambitions political their demonstrated oblast, Kaliningrad including regions, ofnomic Russian problems. numerous Leaders severe eco government and central of the weakness due the to centralisation witnessed processes of de theRussia 1990s in Back region. this for nificance of is government keysig which central adopted policy by the regional the and economic laws). (codes life federal and However, governance practical it the is As a consequence, the regions’ financial situation has become has more dependent situation financial regions’ aconsequence, the As subventions. and subsidies them for granting amechanism introduced change 1.1. 3 2 1996 in liament par regional adopted by the statute of the 1993, constitution by the termined de is oblast of Kaliningrad status the subjects, federal Russian remaining the with As regions. Russian all as regulations legal same by the bound is tion, Federa Russian of the subjects one federal 83 of as the oblast, Kaliningrad 1. I

. T The text of the statute is available at http://duma39.ru/region/ustav.php available is statute of the The text are drawing up their budgets for the next year. year. next for the budgets up their drawing are they time at the centre the from receive will they funds much how know not do regions the aconsequence, As ministries. individual and government the by taken of decisions basis on the regions the to transferred is part agreater while budget acts, federal under granted are subsidies of the part only that noting budget). VAT Itworth is from central go the to revenues all and regions, the in remains of PIT 99% (at present, fund road the and surance VAT, from in incomes social of their of part redistribution of the control lost The regions

H F T OF KAL of R the legal, economic the politicaland in space Kaliningrad E AMB ININ H E ussian Federationussian IS ER F 2 EDER G , and other legal acts which regulate specific areas socio- of areas specific regulate which acts legal other , and R LA A D O ND A TION BLA : Kaliningrad today : Kaliningrad ST ? ussia, the policy of centralising power has power has of centralising policy the ussia, : ASU BJ ORECT A when Vladimir when Vladimir ussian regions ussian N O BJ ECT 3 ), ex in and . In this this . In P utin utin ------

9 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 10 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 4 budget federal the from support least capita per when calculated However, regions. of Russian ranking positionthe in amedium region the accounted for oblast’s 40% of the transfers budgetand assured incomes. This subsidies, subventions, donations Ministry, oblast’s Finance Kaliningrad from data to form of donations.According subsidies, subventions the and in back million US$400 The got region less than over million. were slightly US$500 budget to the itself oblast of went the which directly taxes) from (including revenues 2010, in the oblast while Kaliningrad duties in and collected taxes in Moscow. in on taken budget decisions The billion federal US$1 received almost of elections for heads of regions enabled the Kremlin to replace the previous previous replace to the Kremlin for the enabled ofof heads regions elections class’, The liquidation predominates. , ruling of the ‘party the where president parliaments, by upon the nominated motion regional from were they 2012 and 2005 between elections, general in ofelected stead being in regions: of heads the the concerning procedure election the in – changes Kaliningrad; arepresentative in had FD of the envoy charge the in and Petersburg, Saint in centre (FD), administrative its with Federal North-Western of the part became oblast advising). and Kaliningrad toring powers (moni formal their competenceswhose were much broaderthan real representatives), envoys regions) ten led by (plenipotentiary presidential than (each ofencompasses more which federal of creation the the 2001: in Federation Russian of division the of anew administrative introduction – the my, or ); even ‘sovereignty’, with case the was as autono special law, as issues to federal such concerning were contrary which acts legal into their provisions introduced subjects some 1990s, federal the level (in federal at the legislation contradict of which provisions elimination for the legislation, example, laws federal to regional process of adjusting – the before); ayear than Moscow, from 61% million US$350 i.e. received (the oblast more 34% around by of2011 months nine to up first the in government increased central on the

2010, http://www.ng.ru/Economy/2010-11-16/1_dotacii.html 2010, record-breaking Kamchatka (86,957 roubles). (86,957 See krai Kamchatka record-breaking the and roubles) (42,998 roubles), (13,021 Yakutia aid: of federal recipients ing lead the behind far is roubles). Kaliningrad (1572 Vologda and roubles) oblast (1066 oblast bles rou (1044 krai Krasnoyarsk prosperous the include regions Theleast-subsidised budget. capita per of subsidies roubles 1894 received oblast Kaliningrad 2011, In per capita per ) and (997 roubles), and also such poor regions as Kaluga Kaluga as regions poor such roubles), also (997 and oblast Sverdlovsk ) and , Kaliningrad is among the ten regions receiving receiving regions ten among the is , Kaliningrad 4 . The dependence of the regional budget. The regional dependence of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta Nezavisimaya from the federal federal the from , 16 November November , 16 - - - - - offering them tax allowances tax them offering of incentives asystem forgovernment: for create investors it example, by can 7 6 5 of United Russia branch local of the a member 2010 replaced by Nikolay in 2005; Tsukanov, he was in oblast of Kaliningrad governor nominated was of aide then-President , atrusted Boos, Georgy peoplegovernors who with Moscow. to were more loyal aconsequence, As in 2009 in obligations up budget its meet balance to financial its region and the allowed It oblast. for support Kaliningrad a great was were increased, money transfers Moscow’s of policy, which part as anti-crisis of infrastructure. road ernisation of development apower or plant the mod and construction funds), the as such (for oblast by the example, granting in projects infrastructural tion of large up to Moscow It implementa also to decide is onrelief. the transport fering or of oblast, Economic Zone Kaliningrad of in creation aSpecial the as such economic to a region, preferences decides on granting government also eral awhole. as Russia in The investing fed and business for running rules set the which decrees and acts agreements, budget and codes,customs international cover, which centre, federal adopted forby the the example, nomic regulations eco the to subject also is oblast Kaliningrad regions, one Russian ofAs the 2005). in Party Republican Baltic the as (such have oblast proscribed been the in groupings existing regional the and movements), political with blocs included of of parties elections participants (previously, the elections in part take may parties registered officially only aconsequence, As parties. political federal of the structures regional the with have replaced and been blocs have exist and to ceased parties political – regional access to infrastructure, or simplified administrative procedures. oradministrative simplified access infrastructure, to

to sustain control over the governor elections. elections. governor the over control sustain to Kremlin the allowing process, this in introduced been have restrictions numerous though al 2012, June in reinstated was regions of the heads of the elections of direct The procedure by 4.5 percentage points. points. percentage 4.5 by it reduce may region the and budget, regional go the to tax of this points percentage 18 tax; income corporate 20% the for example, budgets, regional go the to which taxes federal the of part lift to also and tax, property corporate and tax transport including taxes, of regional rates the set to free are regions the Federation, Russian of the Budget Code the to According standing wages. wages. standing pay out to go to bankrupt, about was which Avia, KD company aviation regional the enable to 2009 summer in oblast Kaliningrad to roubles 4billion granted Moscow For example, 6 . The federal regulations offer some limited autonomy to the regional offerautonomysomelimited regional the to regulations . The federal 7 , assistance in finding land investment,easier for land finding in , assistance 5 ; ------11 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 12 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 tioned here tioned sta are ministries federal relevant the to directly report which units fleet and army Numerous element potential. of Russia’s essential Moscow an as military in seen is oblast Federation. Kaliningrad Russian of the regions other in than much more here important factor military the –makes country of rest the the from separation and low density population area, –givensmall its which sia, Rus in highest among the is oblast Kaliningrad in units ofcentration military The con Sea. Baltic ice-free on the port Russian only the is Kaliningrad Also, NATO states. on and EU member which of region Russia, westernmost the is Kaliningrad itself. consequences oblast for the non-standard had also R plays oblast the in role Kaliningrad The essential 9 8 region this of government’s central control the reinforcing businesses) and of local expense (at region the in the big business federal on supporting focused therefore and Moscow, to loyal was and region the with himself not did identify Boos a result, As Kaliningrad). with whatsoever no links a Moscow-based with politician Boos, of (the aforementioned Georgy oblast nomination Kaliningrad place in taken has outside from as governoragiven region, as apolitician nominate Federation to Russian Moscow’sthe across policy. practice rare staffing isa It ernment. gov tighter in control central by the result and oblast, of this case the in consequences have non-standard regulations some standard that mean states) member by EU location surrounded exclave (as unique an and area its regions, small other the as regulations governed same is by the oblast of applicable terms laws Kaliningrad in even though hand, other the On cluding four ship brigades), an armoured brigade, a marine infantry brigade, infantry brigades), four ship brigade, amarine cluding armoured an Additionally,(in units fleet District. Western of Military the part is which

once throughout his entire five-year term in office. in office. term five-year entire his throughout once only Lithuania to went and at all, Poland visit not did he respect: this in example a negative set himself Boos Governor limited. quite were countries neighbouring the with contacts official their and rarely, relatively permits for relevant applied servants public Therefore, the EU. from neighbours their with contacts officials’ regional towards ill-disposed was Moscow that record the off admitted officials imposed, been had trips on such restrictions ban or no formal Although rule. Boos’s Georgy during enforced were trips official foreign for Moscow from consent special seek to on officials obligation an imposing The regulations For more, see http://www.portel.pl/artykul.php3?i=51022 border. Polish-Russian at the stopped were race the in part taking yachts Polish the which of aresult as Lagoon, Vistula the in Fleet Baltic of the exercises military the by disturbed unexpectedly was others, among oblast of Kaliningrad governor the by organised 2010, July in regatta Governors Cupthe of Three example, For affairs. regional complicates sometimes which , regions’ the with decisions their consult not do ministries Federal One of non-standard aspects in the case of Kaliningrad has been been has of Kaliningrad case the in aspects of One non-standard 9 . The command of the Baltic Fleet is located in Kaliningrad oblast, oblast, Fleet Kaliningrad located is in Baltic of the . The command 8 . has has policy security ussian - - - - - council). political regional of the of secretary that was party the held in position he has arank-and-file senior rather most member (the although for years, sia many up as much as one-third of the oblast’s (for oblast’s of 2.3.1.). the more seesection one-third territory muchup as as make total zones in which restricted-access extensive has oblast Kaliningrad authorities. federal central the to reports also which here operates services der bor and of customs awell-developed region, structure afrontier is Since this time. short arelatively in there deployed be weapons can such that weapons, means nuclear which tactical protection offered by these systems) these offeredprotection by the covered be to with Moscow environs, and after region, second Russian the become will oblast (thus this systems missile air-defence S-400 with equipped were oblast Kaliningrad in stationed defence troops air the 2012 April in turn, In 2012. January in deployment for started their preparations oblast; this in warheads, nuclear tactical of arange (with up km), 500 to capable of carrying systems missile ballistic deployment envisagesforces the of Iskander also armed Russian the modernise to The programme 2011. December in oblast put Kaliningrad in into operation was station defence radar missile warning forces. AVoronezh-DM armed Russian of the modernisation of early- the part 12 11 10 ingrad oblast Kalin entire in the areputation of one most efficient of earned officials the and (2009–2010) ofDistrict Gusevsky head of(2005–2009) administration the and mayor the of He Gusev was oblast. 2010 (see this boxin 2). born was Tsukanov August since oblast governor the been of Kaliningrad has 1.2. 25,000) around is personnel law of enforcement agencies,other armed number the (when oblast counted jointly with Kaliningrad in stationed soldiers are 15,000 around deployed total, In brigade are there. amissile brigade and artillery an

13.5 million roubles for running the best-managed in Kaliningrad oblast. oblast. Kaliningrad in town best-managed the for running roubles 13.5 million of prize agovernmental received Gusev 2010, In region. the in managed best the as oblast of Kaliningrad government the by recognised was of Gusev town the 2009, In For example, see warfare.ru see For example, shield’’, EastWeek shield’’, ‘missile of the regardless region Kaliningrad the in ‘Iskanders Wilk, Andrzej For see more, urrent political situation political Current 10 . The oblast’s military potential is also being constantly reinforced as as reinforced constantly being also is potential . The oblast’s military 12 . Tsukanov has been a member of the ruling party United Rus party ruling of the amember been has . Tsukanov no. 281, 1 February 2012, www.osw.waw.pl 2012, 1February no. 281, 11 . The oblast also has storage facilities for storage facilities has . The also oblast - - - 13 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 14 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 (for example of the liberal and democratic opposition Solidarity movement), opposition Solidarity democratic and (for liberal of example the organisations of federal structures regional the as well opposition. As wards to inclined are exclave; most of them the in movements exist political Several 2.4.1.). chapter I, part (for see more Kaliningrad for with Poland agreement traffic border cal have whonegotiated elite, alo instead political federal by the supported been Federation. have These not Russian appeals entire Union the and European the between regime avisa-free process of establishing the apilot in made region be to for Kaliningrad GovernorNikolay were appealing Tsukanov) current the (led Unitedby Russia regional of Union:the members European the and oblast of movement visa-free case Kaliningrad between forthe in as example such 13 come into conflict interests these Sometimes region. to the linked members business) (including of its interests local Moscow the in and headquarters its from guidelines by both affected is activity so its and elites, business and cal politi local of the party the is Kaliningrad in United Russia interests. of local influence the from resulting features characteristic have their parties litical po federal large of the structures regional the regions, most of the with As 1). average national (see the chart by than Unitedachieved Russia results poorer the through also and regions, other in than parliament ingrad’s of Kalin present Russia) in Patriots (primarily parties position smaller of the stronger the through manifested is This oblast. of Kaliningrad characteristic box 1). is of rest Russia, variety, to the compared However political a greater (see Kaliningrad in parliament local the in predominates Unitedgions, Russia re other the in As here. operate also oblast) movementunion Kaliningrad in trade by the dominated been has which party (aRussia moderately nationalist Yabloko of Patriots of party the and democratic of the Structures Zhirinovsky. led of by Russia Vladimir Party Democratic Liberal nationalist ment) the and govern by the persecuted later it was although Kremlin, the from inspiration upon 2006 in (established Russia AJust named party populist leftist the tion, Federa Russian of the Party Communist the opposition, namely ‘licensed’ the to be believed are which parties the and United Russia, party ruling the oblast: Kaliningrad in structures regional have their parties political The federal

tions from their respective party headquarters in Moscow. in headquarters party respective their from tions recommenda to contrary actions, protest the in part took LDPR the and Party Communist of the sections regional 2010: January in Putin’s government and Boos Governor by adopted policy the against protests the during for example, noticeable, was Moscow in quarters head their and parties political of structures regional the between interest of The conflict 13 ------, organisations (for 1.5.). more section see organisations additionpolitical to in oblast, Kaliningrad in operate also organisations social elections). Numerous parliamentary regional engaged the monitoring was in coalition 2010, this of (in United domination Russia political the against opposition bloc an as targeted itself declared has which coalition, liningrad’ Yabloko) and of Russia Patriots the LDPR, the Ka have ‘Our Russia, formed the (the CPRF, AJust parties political of the structures regional the movements and 2010). Justice and January in protests The the Solidarity (including region the in of protests organisers main among the been it 2008, emergenceits has in amovement as region’s opposition in the to itself declares government. Since 14 Doroshok movement Justice the led is by Konstantin of them known The best- itself. region movements have the which emerged in also are there

election by themselves) by election seek half and lists party from elected are MPs of the half region; the in elections during apply lations regu voting (mixed constituencies single-member to thanks MPs additional gained Russia * United (Total – 40 MPs)(Total –40 (10%) –4seats Independent MPs (5%) –2seats LDPR (5%) –2seats Russia A Just (5%) –2seats of Russia Patriots (15%) –6seats Communists (60% seats –24 United share)* Russia 2011) (elected March in oblast of Kaliningrad Parliament Box 1. medium-sized businesses. and for small- unfavourable regulations especially region’s of government, the policies the against protests regular organised has 2008 since which movement, Solidarity the lished He estab businesses. up their wind to them forcing thus cars, used who imported nessmen busi other many and on him taxes huge outstanding imposed service customs the when activity protest in engaged became Doroshok, Konstantin movement, of this The leader 14 . Justice . Justice - - - - 15 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 16 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 Source: R in and oblast, C oblast Governors ofBox 2. the 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 hart 1. Levels of electoral support for support U of electoral Levels 1. hart Period 1996 1991– 2000 1996– 2005 2000– 2010 2005– 2010 since [%] Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation Russian of the Commission Election Central 2007 parliamentary election 2007 parliamentary Governor Yuri Matochkin Leonid Gorbenko Leonid Vladimir Georgy Boos Georgy Nikolay Tsukanov 64.3% ussia as awhole as ussia national average 57.0% P the Soviet KGB Border Troops KGB Border Soviet the in served captain, fleet civilian Fishing Port in Kaliningrad in Port Fishing State-Owned of the director Baltic Fleet Admiral Fleet Baltic of the United Russia party Russia United of the member a high-ranking politician, a Moscow-based United Russia of amember oblast, Kaliningrad in born who was a politician revious career in Kaliningradoblast nited R 2011 parliamentary election 2011 parliamentary ussia in Kaliningrad Kaliningrad in ussia 49.3% election of Manner Yeltsin Boris President by appointed ral election ral agene in elected ral election ral agene in elected Putin Vladimir sident Pre by appointed Medvedev President Dmitry by appointed 37.1% - - - ate aroundup to around 35% of the exclave’s of 35% the ate aroundup to around G residents) double R is the thousand 2). (see sector T chart business small a well-developed has oblast Kaliningrad of rest Russia, the to contrast In markets. Russian and European on situation the difficult due years to the next the in slower be Federation awhole). will sian as growth forecasts, to According Rus 4%the to (in in comparison 2011 by 7.8%in 2010 by grew 7% in GRP and slowly. levels quite pre-crisis the to The oblast’s returning are indicators socio-economic the of rest Russia, 2010, the since observed in been as has GDP awhole the as of by 7.8%).while Russia fell economic revival Although (GRP) Product by 14.9%, fell economic Gross Regional (in 2009, situation negative on Kaliningrad’s strong impact avery had has The economic crisis gion’s industry. re the in used products semi-finished goods and consumer of raw materials, complete abroad) dependenceand on supplies Russia practically (from both people), one million for companies, and than low global investment potential (less outlet market Theregion. exclave’s by asmall economy characterised is keyinvestorsthe in the are state-owned) (predominantly companies Russian food). and Furthermore, furniture cars, sets, (TV exclave the in ufactured outlet goods for man the main the is market The of Russian Russia. rest the The region’s economic in to the situation economic linked closely is situation 1.3. oblast’s development and the key source of funding foroblast’s The investments. seven of development keysource funding the and Kaliningrad force behind driving noticeably. risen main gion has the is This re of the big in business importance the power nuclear station, build to plans and plant heating development the of Kaliningrad’s with together recent years, 3for more details). 20% In of (see generates GRP sectors around chart these there); operate of sets each TV and cars as (assembly of goods such plants try region’s of the However, branches indus and main economy trade the are region’s neighbours. the between their with residents intensiveof effect contacts an is velopment this Yet of trade. hand, other on the de for contributed the to allowed duty-free and region, of goods the to import which before 2006, a whole). had region the privileges of the aresult is This

T he current economiche current situation heir number in Kaliningrad (23.5 per Kaliningrad in number heir ussian averageussian (11), gener they and (onlyRP R in 17% ussia as as ussia ------17 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 18 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 This was possible because the (gas) heat and power heat plant (gas) and possiblefor the because was electricity. This produced enough oblast power to its meet demand Kaliningrad 2011, In and khozes kol­ privatised (mainly firms produced is agricultural by large part remaining the while production, region’s of the half account for agricultural almost farms Small raw 90% ofmaterial. much as the as imports meat industry the example, For come oblast. outside from the food industry regional for the necessary als economy (it 6% generates of around GRP). raw most of materi the a result, As Agriculture is poorly developed in this region poorly is developed this in Agriculture region’sdetriment. the to processed, been having without financial exported predominantly is Amber exclave. this located in are reserves amber 17 16 15 TEC-2)and account for 20% exclave’s of the GRP (including businesses Holding, -Kaliningradmorneft largest The region is famous first of all for its amber deposits amber forall its of first The famous is region 4). average Russian 60% of (see atthe around chart capita still is per average of economic (GRP) development terms Product in Gross –its Regional the Russian below it significantly is oblast, Kaliningrad to granted privileges Despite region’s the billion. US$2 the in around 2010 in reached capital basic investments total while region, this in million US$120 investedonly around the five zone’s the of Over havezoneyears 2011. in these businesses operation, of were residents a rapid the businesses 50 development around region; of the I, 2.1.1.).see chapter However,about bring to failed offered have benefits the (for oblast zone more on the Kaliningrad Zone (SEZ) entire covers the which Economic Special of the law) the part as (in compliance 2031 with leges until privi customs and fiscal use to thepossibility have region offered been the in million US$5 invest over which entities around business large Since 2006,

nuclear power plant and the road infrastructure. infrastructure. road the and plant power nuclear the TEC-2, the as such projects, infrastructural large by mainly fuelled were Investments 2009). in 30% than more by fell of investments value (the before a year than more 15% almost i.e. billion), US$2.2 (around roubles 66.7 billion reached exclave the in investments 2010, In is below sea level and requires intensive melioration efforts. efforts. melioration intensive requires and level sea below is land of the part that noted be to It 2010. needs in cultivated was land of arable 60% Around In 2010, the Kaliningrad Amber Factory produced 340 tonnes of amber in the region. region. the in of amber tonnes 340 produced Factory Amber Kaliningrad the 2010, In sovkhozes ). 17 , and is of low importance for of its is low, and importance 15 . 16 , since up, since 90% to of global - -

Belarus. Although the region has its own small oil fields, where the oil thecompany oil fields, oil where small own its has region the Although . supplies off aconsequence ofits to receive to as Moscow unable cutting gas was when Kaliningrad 2004, in happened This lead shortages to of raw materials. may this and neighbours, its Russia between conflicts of gas case the In region. the to sector’s some causing difficulty is dependence on supplies of raw materials energy orThe by sea. regional Lithuania and Belarus via transit in Russia, land natural gas followingraw materials: on the enclave relies the power in of electric Production box 2.1.3. 5). and chapter see project, (for states power plant nuclear member more EU to on the mainly exported, be Moscow’s to According power would plant nuclear the from concept, energy environment. natural the adversely which affect power heat plants and coal production of small replace to the and for energy demand in a possible increase for satisfy to region, example the in of used productionbe its could part Only region’sthe than higher needs. outputis planned Its significance. ofis limited 2009, since through pushing been Moscow which has oblast, Kaliningrad in of power plant anuclear region’s the construction needs,the regards As energy of Russia. that from grid Kaliningrad’s would (ENTSO-E) off cut system European network the in Lithuanian of inclusion the The planned Russia. in operates (IPS/UPS) which post-Soviet the system with power states’ system Baltic of the synchronisation the through ensured is transmission of energy possibility The technical ania. Lithu through kW running (330 each) lines energy of three by means Russia of rest the with now is 2011)(since connected December grid grad’s energy Voronezh and Kalinin . Leningrad the in power from plants states tic Bal of networks the the via it needed by transit 80% electricity ofmuch as the received oblast as Kaliningrad USSR, collapse of the the 2010.December After 19 18 TEC-2

60% of the residents were connected to the system at the end of 2010). end at the system the to connected were residents of the 60% (over network the to connected be to residents the allow but also plant, power and heat the of needs the meet only not will supplies increased These region. the in facility storage gas its supplies to this region. this to supplies gas unprofitable increase to Gazprom, investor, key of the unwillingness the was problem Themain 1990s. early the since ongoing been had of TEC-2 Theconstruction development. region’s economic this to impediment serious a recently until was deficit The electricity line system used to supply gas to the exclave from 1.5 to 2.5 billion m 1.5 2.5 billion to from exclave the to gas supply to used system line pipe gas of the capacity annual the increased has Gazprom developed, been has TEC-2 As 18 had been completed, been had put second its been and block intoin had operation 19 , mazout and coal, all of which are principally supplied main from principally ofare which all coal, and , mazout 3 , and is also developing developing also is , and - - ­ - - 19 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 20 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 20 2010) (DROND 2010 Source: C Source: operates LUKoil sectors of Kaliningrad’s economy, of Kaliningrad’s sectors of 1O as value C prices higher. fuel makes which neighbours, or its from Russia rest the of from imports by satisfied be must products for petroleum demand healthcare andeducation [15.9%] and communications [10.8%]

hart 3. T 3. hart hart 2. S 2. hart Medical, social and utility services [4.2%] Medical, socialandutilityservices has also built an oil terminal in Izhevskoye by the Vistula Lagoon, among other projects. other among Lagoon, Vistula the by Izhevskoye in terminal oil an built also has Thecompany region. the outside exported is production entire Its 2010. in shelf sea and land on fields the from of oil tonnes million 1.2 over extracted LUKoil company oil The Russian of electricalenergy, gasandwater [3.3%] Public administration, Hotels andrestaurants[5.2%] Property market[16.4%] Property Report on the results and general policies of the government of Kaliningrad oblast in 2010 (DROND 2010) (DROND 2010 in oblast of Kaliningrad government of the policies general and results the on Report Report on the results and general lines of activity of the government of Kaliningrad oblast in in oblast of Kaliningrad government of the of activity lines general and results the on Report Transport Production anddistribution mall and medium businesses, abreak-up businesses, medium and into individual mall he structure of Kaliningrad oblast’s G of Kaliningrad he structure Trade [18.7%] 20 , as the oblast has no facilities to process this raw material, its its raw material, process to this no facilities has oblast the , as Other [2.5%] Other [3.6%] Processing industry [19.1%] Processing industry Trade [22.9%] Agriculture [4.6%] Agriculture [6.6%] Transport andcommunications [8.2%] Processing industry [19.0%] Processing industry Construction industry [8.6%] Construction industry Construction industry [14.2%] Construction industry Production ofnatural resources[6.2%] (in %)RP 2010 in Property market[9.8%] Property ctober 2010ctober (in %) components for car assembly; see chart 6).components seechart assembly; for car but(they Korea, supply South even by and Slovakia byonly , China not have outstripped been they region; keysuppliers of goods this to among the not are proximity, Lithuania Poland and geographical Despite their furniture. and footwear, food products, and clothes agricultural products, hold chemical sets), TV and components for (especially cars products the machinery and processed goods: electrical imports predominantly exclave significantly. The not of changed goods has terms in region’s structure trade Soya) account for goods. The of 50%value imported of the Sodruzhestvo and Avtotor (including importers top ten Kaliningrad’s privileges. have customs 21 economic zone special of residents generated the by the are of imports value 90% of the Almost of rest Russia. sold the in then are goods which ture manufac to use assembly plants the local which products semi-finished are exclave’s meet to imports the of the majority necessary needs,avast are which over region’s goods, 90% of 5). the consumer from (see Apart foreignchart trade account for Imports market. Russian the away-station as only used towards that is it deficit underdeveloped due fact to economythe trade its and a vast region’s the than GRP. higher times has region This ahalf one is Russia) and of regions other the and oblast Kaliningrad between (excluding trade trade The of region’s value the and foreign to markets, economy linked closely is 2010) (DROND Source: ration’s G C 0.5 0.6 0.7

hart 4. R 4. hart index.php?ID=2664 http://economy.gov39.ru/news/ oblast; of of Kaliningrad Economy Ministry the from Data Report on the results and general policies of the government of Kaliningrad oblast in 2010 2010 in oblast of Kaliningrad government of the policies general and results the on Report 1998 0.60 DP (in %) atio of Kaliningrad oblast’s G atio of Kaliningrad 2005 0.59 2006 0.58 2007 0.67 to the R to the capita per RP 0.66 2008 2009 0.64 ussian Fede- ussian 2010 0.64 21 , who - - 21 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 22 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 Source: C Source: C United Kingdom. the and Holland Germany, to Poland,Lithuania, ported ex are region this from Goods exports. in predominate market) Russian the production goes of to the majority vast (although the cars products)leum and petro and oil crude (mainly sector energy and output fuel of the the especially 70%), (around oblast). Raw materials Kaliningrad from re-exported was Russia six-fold; rose value of export regions (their other products production from of petroleum sales the in increase to an owing mainly achieved was growth export of value US$1,3bln. spectacular This pre-crisis the to fore returned twofold 2010, there The and with region’s compared increased 2011 in exports 10 Other [39.2%] 0 2 4 6 8 hart 6. S hart hart 5. Kaliningrad oblast’s foreign trade Kaliningrad 5. hart [US$ billions] 1.3 Lithuania [2.0%] Ministry of Economy of Kaliningrad oblast of Kaliningrad of Economy Ministry Federation Russian of the Service Customs oblast, of Kaliningrad of Economy Ministry 2004 3.2 hare of the key trade partners in the exclave’s the in 2011 (in in partners %) imports trade key of the hare Poland [8.0%] exports imports South Korea[13.0%] Germany [18.5%] 1.3 Slovakia [10.0%] 2008 China [19.3%] 9.9 0.5 2009 5.2 0.7 2010 8.2 1.3 2011 10.4 - - - age R aver of to onlyforeign the one-third capitaequivalent is per investments (5%).tzerland T 20%(over (around each),land 10%), 9%) (almost Swi and Lithuania –21%), Russia to Po USA and the returning capital Russian (predominantly are Cyprus region this investors in main The of 2011. half first the invested in more was million US$143 additionally more, and million over US$200 means year), crisis before the which (2009,a year being than 80%2010 higher in was Russia The ofinvested few in years. value foreign capital past over the creasing a whole. Yet in been level of has the foreign investments it noted be must that as Russia in time roubles), same invested at the was billion over while US$420 (over 20billion million US$800 around only have to reached were estimated of end at 2010 region the the in foreign investments a consequence, total As of rest Russia).velop the presence its in decided to de notfirm did in 2010 come mentSwedish into effect there (this IKEA’s invest Furthermore, oblast. Kaliningrad in businesses wound up their havealready which Budimex, firm Polish construction the and ), production in launch to coolers (which of and planning is refrigerators turer manufac competitiveness. Twodeclining Lithuanian Snaige, the are examples proof region’s is of few which the years, past over region the the from drawn Skolkovo Moscow). and near foreign investors have Several with Dubna, (such as economic established zones already special numerous the in proper, Russia in locations especially chooses primarily market Russian the in presence in interested is foreign which investors. foreign capital Any attract to insufficient are imports). and Kaliningrad Thein offered privileges transit of energy, costs namely that, to linked costs business higher the and of Russia region (the of market’s rest the isolation the from characteristic those and changing law) and courts inefficient rights, protection ofproperty sufficient to the limitations which are typical of R typical are which limitations to the foreign with investors due both popular not is very oblast Kaliningrad (see chart 7). (see value chart ussian he indicator for Kaliningrad oblast presenting the value of value presenting the oblast he indicator for Kaliningrad (corruption, in awhole as (corruption, ussia - ­ ------23 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 24 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 1000 22 million) US$15.6 or roubles, (to 2009 470 million during tripled more than which region, this in highest the among were also The of wage Russia. arrears part European the in highest the Federation), on average 8.4% to (in Russian comparison among the in was and 10.9% reached region unemploymentverely. the rate in the 2009, December In se especially oblast Kaliningrad affected which economic global crisis, the to due further has deteriorated situation difficult prices. This high in results which on imports, country, ofeconomy reliance rest the its and the from regional of the separation the to related costs of the aresult principally is This Russia on in average.than more is difficult region the in situation The social 1.4. 2010) (DROND Source: R the and C 200 400 600 800

hart 7. Foreignhart in capita Kaliningrad per investments oblast Source: Rosstat. Source: 0 T Report on the results and general policies of the government of Kaliningrad oblast in 2010 2010 in oblast of Kaliningrad government of the policies general and results the on Report he social situationhe social [USD] Kaliningrad oblast Russian Federation 2005 373.9 ussian Federation ussian 79.9 2006 86.1 385.9 22 . 318.8 2007 850.5 2008 401.1 730.8 577.4 2009 119.7 802.6 2010 219.5 - average awhole as Russia levels in the to comparison in region the in of incomes much smaller is terms in society Russia) has been engaged in the resettlement programme, which encourages which programme, resettlement engaged been the in has Russia) people 3307 was 2010. in states The balance positive Baltic migration the and countries CIS from oblast Kaliningrad in settle to people 3004 came Kazakhstan. from mostly CIS, the from predominantly exclave come to this Migrants migration. (around US$2.5 million) in December 2011 December in US$2.5(around million) roubles million 2.6%). reduced 74.4 to wages also was The of value outstanding poverty line has been decreasing over the past ten years ten past over the decreasing been has line poverty averagethe R in 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 Federation) Russian average 9.7%, to 6.2%compared on the September-Novemberwas 2011 the in erage. The unemployment (the rateaverage continues high quite to be rate in av Russian below the still are levels and pre-crisis the to have not returned 2010, since mostindicators improving been although has situation The social is 22,600 roubles) 22,600 is 19,600 roubles, average the around or it US$650,while 2011 was wage Russia in lowest average the with among regions ten the wage January-September (in also is Kaliningrad Russia. European in highest among the still is indicator this difference was overwas 1000 difference this of 2011 months nine first the in while of births, number the than higher 3000 around was of rate (in 2010, deaths number anegative the birth has region This

za 2010 god’, oblasti http://ombudsman39.ru/annual_reports vkaliningradskoi igrazhdanina cheloveka isvobod prav ‘O soblyudienii oblast grad Kalinin in ombudsman rights human the from Report 13.2%). to 39 Source: (from 126,100 to 395,000 from fell oblast Kaliningrad in people of such number the 2010, and 2001 Between Ibidem. winter. for the year every preserves mushroom and vegetable fruit, make of pensioners 40% and grad of Kalinin residents of 31% all needs. own for their vegetables and fruit grow they where plot, agarden own region of this residents of the 27% of income, sources traditional to addition Group, in Monitoring Kaliningrad out the by carried surveys to According Rosstat. Source: roubles. 8300 awhole was as Russia in average pension the while US$242), (around roubles 7900 was 2011 September and January between Kaliningrad in The average old-age pension average (and five years shorter than in Lithuania); Rosstat 2010. Rosstat Lithuania); in than shorter fiveaverage (and years Russian the than shorter 67.7 year one is years, region this in expectancy The average life ekonomicheskoe-razvitie/osnovnye-pokazateli-ser/ http://economy.gov39.ru/socialno- oblast, of of Kaliningrad Economy Ministry Source: Ibidem. Source: Kaliningrad Statistical Office, www.kaliningrad.gks.ru Office, Statistical Kaliningrad Source: 29 . Since January 2007, Kaliningrad oblast (along with other regions of regions other (along oblast with 2007, Kaliningrad . Since January Despite this, the number of residents living below the below the of living residents number the Despite this, ussia. 25 , 23 while the living costs in Kaliningrad are higher than higher than are Kaliningrad in living costs the while . People’s real incomes are gradually growing (in 2010 by. People’s growing gradually incomes are real 28 ). However, compensated for losses are by these 27 . 24 , although the outstanding wage outstanding the , although 26 . The stratification of . The stratification - - ­ 25 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 26 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 few years few past over the falling been has mortality tuberculosis time, same 135. At the was (82/100,000 number oblast Russia), this in 2006 in while 2010 Kaliningrad in in 100,000 people per were registered 98.5 1990s. of tuberculosis newthe cases to compared further, spreading from possiblebeen diseases prevent to these averages. it Russian has Nevertheless, the than higher ofare incidences which HIV/AIDS are problems tuberculosis, andsocial significant persistent Other region. Kaliningrad the within healthcare in paid offered those lower than are charges the and higher are where standards Lithuania, and Poland in services healthcare paid use to residents many causing is situation 413/100,000 of end at2010 oblast the average (while is the Russia in number Kaliningrad simply a reflection of better diagnostics. simply better of areflection or of is Russia, regions other to the comparison in diseases of these currence oc high a genuinely reflects oblast Kaliningrad in diseases these concerning incidence rate higher the to clearlyconclude Therefore, whether it difficult is 1990s. the in region prevention this in disease and screening in vested funds 34 33 32 31 30 Russia in USSR settle to of the former citizens region, its healthcare system was one best-developed of USSR was the the system in healthcare its region, of this character military given the period, Soviet the Federation, in while sian Rus entire lowest the resident among the in is per here number their oblast; Kaliningrad in beds hospital ity. shortage and of physicians agrowing There is budget the from allocated funds insufficient and system healthcare the in of reforms lack the situation: healthcare problems difficult have by deepened the been

in Russia) and 143 hospital beds (137 in Russia). Source: 2010 Statistical Yearbook, Rosstat. Rosstat. Yearbook, Statistical 2010 Source: Russia). (137 in beds hospital 143 and Russia) in (45 on average physicians 41.5 were there 1990, In region. of the residents 10,000 per Russia) in (97 beds hospital 80 and Russia) on average in (50.1 physicians 34.8 were there 2009, In god’, http://ombudsman39.ru/annual_reports 2009 za oblasti vkaliningradskoi igrazhdanina cheloveka i svobod prav ‘O soblyudienii oblast Kaliningrad in ombudsman rights human the from Report Source: authorities. tion region’s prosecu the by court to brought it was that standards federal the to comparison in healthcare for free low funds such envisaged for 2009 programme healthcare The regional search and policy http://www.hivpolicy.ru/statistic/national/ re AIDS and for HIV centre Russian the from of data basis on the calculations, own Our in 2010 (DROND 2010), prepared by the Ministry of Economy of Kaliningrad oblast. of of Kaliningrad Economy Ministry the by 2010), (DROND 2010 in prepared oblast of Kaliningrad government of the policies general and results on the Report Source: 9500 people settled in Kaliningrad oblast as part of this programme by December 2010. December by programme of this part as oblast Kaliningrad in settled people 9500 31 are restricting access to medical services and are lowering their qual lowering their are and services access medical to restricting are 33 . The number of people diagnosed with HIV was 771 per 100,000 in 100,000 per in 771 was HIV . ofThe people number with diagnosed 34 ). However, it is worth emphasising that European countries in ). countries However, European that emphasising it worth is 30 . The region’s demographic 32 . This . This ------35 in Europe’ ‘a Russia area, different ofselves residents aspecial as seethem still they , as themselves conducted 2002) in identify census (over 82% the to according of of majority residents Kaliningrad avast Although 1.5. interests which are often unnoticed and unconsidered in Moscow in (see unconsidered and box 3). unnoticed often are which interests of acommunity forming is and region, of residents of this identity the on the impact astrong has which of rest Russia, the from separation and distance cal region – physiits this location of unusual the of effect an is of distinct being

dents) and its famous representatives (especially ), and also Kant), also and Immanuel representatives (especially dents) famous its and former resi of habits their and topography of present the which (omnipresent publications pre-war photographs and East and berg of Königs history of elements to the references frequent fested through mani is no is longer legacy its For issue. gion and this a taboo example, re of this history The Prussian past. the in interest growing replaced with being gradually are history its and region the of with ties lack the tion and visibly evolved. has region Theof aliena feeling of residents of this the tity iden social and historical Twenty the USSR, collapse of the the since years population). entire oblast’s accounted for up to 30% families of the their presence, who with together army strong the (including region of the character military and closed the and region, the in of roots lack residents, their of the structure ethnic as ‘Soviet’, varied thethe defined be could componentsincluded of which USSR collapse of the the after immediately and period Soviet the in dents resi The of identity Kaliningrad’s area. this whom in were forced settle to of many USSR, of the parts replaced by people various from were totally displaced, fled been whoor either had Prussia, of residents East German ethnic when 1945, the late as formed to be evolving as community. It started constantly up new arelatively and make The of residents Kaliningrad T Box 3. identichnosti’, v poiskakh my? Kaliningradtsi ‘Kto Berendeyev, M. see For example, Europe. to proximity and Russia of rest the from distinctness specificity, of regional sense their time same at the and Russia with identification their reflects which of Kaliningrad, residents of the identity the concerning and works surveys many in occurs in Europe’ Russia ‘a different The phrase blog_Ginzburg/1147/ blog_Ginzburg/1147/ http://rugrad.eu/communication/blogs/ iv Kaliningrade, Yevrope v zarubezhnoi tichnost

C haracteristics of the Kaliningrad residents of Kaliningrad the haracteristics he evolution of Kaliningrad’s historical identity he evolution historical of Kaliningrad’s no. 4/2007, pp. 127-132., S. Ginzburg, ‘Iden Ginzburg, S. no. 4/2007, pp. 127-132., issledovaniya Sotsiologicheskiye 35 . This sense sense . This ------27 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 28 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 living standards, including the quality and prices services. of and goods and quality the including standards, living of terms apoint in of becoming for reference them are countries neighbouring the and oblast, of residents Kaliningrad with popular very are clinics and sorts shopping holiday centres, re aconsequence,Lithuanian tive. Polish and As competi and more attractive countries neighbouring the in services goods and supplies makes on external economy reliance heavy its and of Kaliningrad’s 37 36 the exclave) the (out visas of of residents 215,000 941,500 around issued oblast Kaliningrad in states of member EU consulates 2011, In regions. Russian ofresidents other than more EU often the in neighbours EU. They the to their contact to tend more travel to open exclave,are residents its an is oblast Kaliningrad Because been abroad, while 8.7% of them go abroad several times ayear times 8.7% go while of several abroad, abroad been them

the need to intensify contacts with the European Union. European the with contacts need intensify to the region’s the –emphasise derive from and Europe, to belonging of directly not spoken –albeit past Prussian the to references historical Furthermore, Europe). with contacts trading their to thanks 1991 partly after reality free-marketthe new with in well fitted they so period, Soviet the in abroad travelled groupsthe amongwhoregularly were staff concept (military whom to idea region’snel, of the the not of is astrange Europe part being person military retired and active including regions, other from settlers by but also Kaliningrad, in who orgeneration raised were born of citizens new not to by only the referred Königsberg’s is region. history this in ciety so diversified astrongly what abond still is in creates past the in Interest schools. many held in are Königsberg of history the in classes clubs,Extracurricular etc. sports of firms, names the in and about Kaliningrad when speaking both name, German torical ‘König’,’sthe name the to reference use his often residents a Russified region’s of the name the city). (including capital names everyday life, In cal histori about reinstating discussions monuments, of and the care through treated as more or less representative of the entire region. region. entire of the representative or less more as treated be can survey of the results the so , and towns in live region’s of residents the 78.5% region’s of population, the up 82.37% make Russians ethnic of 2002, census the to According Baltika’. ‘Russkaya issledovaniy obshchestvenno-politicheskikh Tsentr by oblast liningrad of Ka cities and towns the in living Russians among 2011 out in carried surveys from Data Source: information from the Polish consulate in Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad. in consulate Polish the from information Source: 36 . Only 18.5% of the urban population in this region have region never this in population 18.5% urban . Only of the 37 . The weakness . The weakness ------social services, function in Kaliningrad oblast, something rare in Russia in rare something oblast, Kaliningrad in function services, social implementing in NGOs with co-operates state the of which part as nerships, 41 40 39 38 at all regions Russian do not other population visit of urban its 7% than ayear, less times while several of 10% rest Russia gotion often: of the to them Federa Russian of the regions other visit also oblast Residents of Kaliningrad for a while in the 1990s, when supporters of the region’s of the when 1990s, supporters the for in as awhile such independence They region. occurred this in exist tendencies separatist that said be it cannot of residents Kaliningrad, among the of distinctness feeling clear Despite the Gryzlov, Boris among others. Duma, State of governor, the speaker Nikolay then Tsukanov,Kaliningrad’s the and have club accepted been by this with to meetings invitations that so popular become It life. has real in and Internet on the ofcated residents Kaliningrad edu and young, active between views for into aplatform exchanging turned 2010. has in club This Amberkant called club adiscussion They established into public activity. bloggersbrought have some also new quality Kaliningrad most 3500 NGOs which are registered in this region this in registered are which NGOs most 3500 professional al or hobby among the predominate groups devoted to certain those and heritage, youth organisations cultural and environment natural the thousand residents) thousand R above clearly the is which operatedents there, resi thousand per non-governmental 3.6 public organisations activity: 1.3.), I, chapter (see R ness sector part also is and busi awell-developed small has oblast The of Kaliningrad Russia. parts other people in living than oblast’s resourceful more and residents active this make region’s the and contacts dependence on imports of external The intensity purposes. or for small-business tourists as a lesser extent to and or trips, on business families their visit to go predominantly Russia to

Source as above. above. as Source liningrad oblast’s Justice Ka of the website on the Ministry, available are http://www.klguprminjust.ru/structure_48 organisations social and of non-governmental Lists Source: Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation http://unro.minjust.ru/NKOs.aspx Federation Russian of the of Justice Ministry Source: equipping this facility. facility. this equipping for grants foreign received has association This Olekhovo. in building school a former in children for handicapped centre arehabilitation and adayroom it keeps government, the with agreement an to Pursuant oblast. of Kaliningrad government the with partnership Maria , an association of mothers of handicapped children, entered into a public and private private and apublic into entered children, of handicapped of mothers association , an 39 . Organisations dealing with social issues, protection of protection issues, social with dealing . Organisations ussia’s of terms in leader 40 . Public and private part and . Public ussian averageussian (2.6 per 38 . They 41 . The ------29 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 30 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 ments in this region (for more details, seebox 4). (for region more details, this in ments senti not did 2011 affect December in Russia swept across which of protests wave the that extent an such to potential able resistance cow reduce to was the problems. Mos By some byresolving local of them, mainly fuelled was faction Putin’s government). However, residents’ dissatis the out that later it turned of Vladimir dismissal for (for appealed the slogans they example, anti-Putin use to first were the them). in 10,000to participants Their people participated a whole of as Russia a (updecade scale in on the protests most numerous the were they time, public. At that the and elites business and political regional the region. The consolidatedprotest this people most in adversely which affected times, several tax transport rate of the the fordecisions, increasing example were GovernorBoos’s protests for the catalyst publicThe to protests. direct rise gave in 2009 region this in standards living the deterioration of significant the environment, international the with by contacts inspired aspirations their and residents of Kaliningrad’s activity social higher a consequence of the As have of mentioned rest Russia public been in debate. the from region of the separation or real for formal No region. proposals ofdents this for resi visas facilitate should EU the that demanded The participants sels. Brus in and Kaliningrad in states member Schengen-area ofof the consulates 2010 of were held in front pickets ofa number in which part as Europe’ action, ‘prisoners of the is oblast’s the publicise of problems example One this abroad. 43 42 Party Republican Baltic the tus of a separate federal of aseparate tus sta given should be the exclave autonomy the that at present are supporters Moscow’s in from respected proposals be to Theterests decisions. mostradical in of amount autonomy special its and region for acertain want this only time at views that who today even held ‘separatist’ Meanwhile, those media. the in

kiy federalnyi ’, 1 August Gazeta 2011, Nezavisimaya For see more, http://www.ng.ru/regions/2011-08-01/1_kenig.html. Ginzburg. Solomon Duma, Kaliningrad’s of amember by led politicians of regional agroup are district of afederal status the oblast Kaliningrad at winning aimed project of the The authors Petersburg. Saint is city capital whose District, Federal North-Western of the part is oblast Kaliningrad the At present, ment Respublika ment move public the as operating now is and 2005, in banned was party This members. dred hun several had and Pasko, Sergey by 1993 in established was Party Republican The Baltic , with little impact. little , with 42 , few as they were, were still active and noticeable and active were, were still they , few as 43 . Local activists are also making attempts to to attempts making also are activists . Local , ‘Kenigsbergs ------gions whom they had nominated were losing public nominated support. whom had gions they re of heads the the and Putin around focused elite the that demonstrate to Yashin), Ilya wanted and Nemtsov, Milov Boris who turn in Vladimir opposition Moscow from of leaders (including political by the supported were Kaliningrad residents of promoting. been The had ‘dissatisfied’ ernor of gov Moscow-based domination the the which business and regulations economic unfavourable forces. against protested The elite business litical governor’s po the other persecute favour to and United attempts Russia opposed to Moscow’s was elite control region, of political the tightening the of part Asignificant institutions. condition of terrible social the tion and economic situa deteriorating the against were protesting residents nary groups. interest The ordi different and citizens the united The protests of residents. numbers large and Zhirinovsky’s LDPR), and businessmen numerous Communists ample the (for ex parties political federal of the structures regional by the attended also oblast). protest was The autonomy January broaden the of Kaliningrad er) Solomon and (an independentMP, to Ginzburg appeals for his famous work aformer shipyard and party, of Russia Patriots of the structure local (the leader of the Chesalin Mikhail MPs services), federal local from and pressure under business up forced his was to wind and second-hand cars, tice’, Doroshokwho imported (a former businessman led by Konstantin movement ‘Jus Kaliningrad-based leader of the the region: the in known who were well- were activists demonstrations of the organisers The direct cost-freeUnion, including visas. European the to travel in facilitations EU, demanded and the lation from region’s the with iso voiced dissatisfaction The also their protesters time. at the Russia in taboo broke which apolitical act an Putin, led by Vladimir government central remove to the governor, also and then Boos, Georgy the sack to calls including protests, the emerged during slogans political anti-governmental time, same At the system. condition healthcare of the terrible the and charges, utility and taxes economic rising of situation, the rapid the deterioration with dissatisfaction their expressed protests the in were provoked by socio-economic who problems: residents participated the 2010. The protests January in many as twice and 2009, December in streets people the thousand fivetook to time: at size that unprecedented their in late 2009/early in 2010 were Kaliningrad place in The taking public protests P Box 4. rotests in Kaliningrad Kaliningrad in rotests ------31 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 32 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 Kaliningrad itself, mostly goes directly into the Neman and Pregola rivers, and Pregola rivers, and and Neman into the goes mostly directly itself, Kaliningrad including cities, largest the from waste Communal basin. Sea Baltic entire the on impact astrong has which region, of this areas most urban in ment plants of sewage lack treat the is oblast problems Kaliningrad in greatest ofOne the whole. a as of Russia typical problems are these time, same public. At the among the habits of ecological lack the and environment, natural the force to respect businesses would which of regulations lack the infrastructure, of environmental lack the pollution, air levels of and high water problems as such face to has region This oblast. Kaliningrad major in issues are protection environment and Ecology 1.6. several hundred to one thousand people. one to thousand hundred several few by as as people Moscow, in of thousands Kaliningrad in were attended dozens gathered which 2011, of fraud December electoral the against tests of pro people. or by dozens only hundreds the were attended Even during The held afterwards region. pickets this in have not scale recurred on this protests Mass further. any ‘dissatisfied’ the mobilise to were unable and lost protest leaders public confidence discredited the public, and the and elites local tension among the governor controversial alleviated of the al The remov term. short the in proved successful has The Kremlin’s strategy protest action. the of participants eyes other of the the in them discredit and them timidate in to were taken activities protests, of leaders the Moscow. the regards As controlled by position, strictly aweak with apolitician is Kremlin by the The top among its priorities. new governor appointed still is region of the control retain to desire its policy; regional its revise to Kremlin the vince However, con to failed initiated. protests was the protests ofleaders the the with year, adialogue next and until postponed was raise tax transport the were dismissed, policy &social of labour and of healthcare ministers al region unpopular public: the and elites local among the dissatisfaction the to lessen instruments financial and political other to resorted Moscow also oblast. Kaliningrad the in replaced by Nikolay born Tsukanov, apolitician 2010, August public. was In Boos and elites local from pressure leader under replace region’sdecidedto a Kremlin the time, way; first for the atypical an in Kaliningrad in protests government the The to responded federal

T he ecological situation ecological he ------eral programme for developing Kaliningrad oblast until 2015, which envisages 2015, which until oblast for developing Kaliningrad programme eral fed by the were supported Sea Baltic the entering of amount waste reduce the sian ecologists sian developed by Rus ranking the in subjects federal Russian 83 among the 29th rated is oblast 2.1.2.). chapter II, (see Kaliningrad part have modernised been Gusev, in built EU, was afew plant asewage the others from and treatment level of emissions have been reduced over the past fewlevel have years reduced of been past emissions over the the and water of For amount waste region’s the environment. example, natural thepollution the to lessen of efforts The oblast’s making been government has big pose of, problems. also buildings), not disposed been has mostof which military of remnants and army the(scrap by left waste the minefields),and still are tourists to attractive be potentially could which seaside by the areas (for recultivated some example, and need disarmed be to which areas, itary region’s on the impact ecology. adetrimental having Post-mil also are period Soviet the in built infrastructure military of the remnants the Furthermore, recycling. and disposal any developed of system sites. there household waste Noris landfill dumped in is which waste, of industrial storage for disposal the and facilities of specialist of capacity. major its lack problem limits the Another working is at is the and modernised) be to needs and outdatedis war (most before the of built it was infrastructure environmental groundwater. goes The into the existing waste its entire basin entire its across of Sea sources pollution Baltic for one greatest is of the the Kaliningrad 47 46 45 44 2.1.2.) chapter II, Sea (see part Baltic the into them with flow

op. cit op. oblast, of of Kaliningrad Economy Ministry the by 2010),(DROND prepared 2010 in oblast of Kaliningrad government of the policies general and results on the Report Source: tonnes. 119,000 to tonnes 300,000 from reduced was of emissions level the and 2010, spring 2011, and 29 and 2011, spring The amount of waste water was reduced from 138 million m million 138 from reduced was water of waste The amount bod cheloveka i grazhdanina v kaliningradskoi oblasti za 2010 god’, 2010 cit za op. oblasti vkaliningradskoi igrazhdanina cheloveka bod isvo prav ‘O soblyudienii oblast Kaliningrad in ombudsman rights human the from Report Kaliningrad oblast 28 oblast Kaliningrad ranked organisation This situation. industrial-ecological the and socio-ecological the ture, of na protection the account into taking region, the in situation ecological the monitors which organisation, Patrol Green the by developed been has system The ranking situation. ecological of its evaluation the better the ranking, the in region’s number the The lower the lack of co-financing from Russia. Russia. from of co-financing lack the and administration public of the indolence the due to completed been not still work has the project, for this funding international 1997. receiving However, despite since ongoing been has Kaliningrad in plant treatment sewage urban an at building work aimed Construction 47 45 , which is a relatively good position. Kaliningrad’s efforts to efforts good arelatively is position. Kaliningrad’s , which . Most in the region have no sewage systems, so the have region the noso sewage the in systems, . Most villages th in summer 2011; http://www.greenpatrol.ru. th among the 83 Russian federal subjects in 2009, 35 2009, in subjects federal Russian 83 the among 3 in 2005 to 80 million m million 80 to 2005 in 44 . In effect, the city city of the effect, . In 46 . Thanks to aid aid to . Thanks . th in 2010, 38 2010, in . th 3 in in in in - - - - - 33 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 34 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 2.1. sian budget. sian have Rus for which of proved abuses, expensive a source the numerous very duties) and been has taxes of evasion for indirect the (allowing Russia tion in corrup zone, widespread of Federation. the given the TheRussian existence sold the components; across were then imported bled from these products hold assem which region appliances). the in were created plants Assembly house equipment and of electronic case (15% the value in goods’ initial the 30% of not less was than exclave the in followingprocessing added value the that applying, on condition still benefits the with Russian other to brought been transported had be oncould region a duty-free the to basis which Goods of rest Russia. the to countries other goods from for importing ‘duty-free area’, avast as area formed acorridor which this use to ness circles busi enabled also and region, this goods in prices of reduceto consumer the zone it of made possible the The region. existence the in borders new state emergence of the the USSR and collapse of the byeconomic the caused shock the softened This region. (VAT this to duty) goods imported excise for and all taxes indirect and customs from The ofexemptions introduced SEZ 1996 oblast. Economic Zone (SEZ) Special on the Kaliningrad act in the in down were written these of that 1996 beginning at only it the was although USSR, thethe collapse of since benefits enjoyed has customs oblast Kaliningrad 2.1.1. region’sprevent this development. which barriers existing the reduced insufficiently has such ent, as and inconsist and unstable been far so cow’s has exclave the towards policy However, projects. Mos developing and infrastructural costs transit sidising Economic Zone of (SEZ), aSpecial status the region the sub granting include These exclave. actions an as by situation its caused barriers for region the this to compensate to action taking been Moscow years, has twenty past the Over 2. it water produces. ofamount waste on obligation imposes it which the 1992, reduce to since the Area Sea Baltic the of Environment Marine Convention of the Protection on the Helsinki the to up signed also has Russia projects. implementationthe of pro-environmental towards the region the towards A

N A as an exclave an as T

T he policy of compensating for location Kaliningrad’s he S RE SPECI A UNDER pecial E pecial conomic exclave Zone the in AL SUR AL V EI LLA NCE : Moscow’s policy ------tent financed from the regional budgetregional the from tent financed ex agreat to are privileges budget,new tax the forfederal while a burden the theSEZ exemptions of 1996) (under customs were The theSEZ. financing to related costs with budget burdened been regional has the that meant primarily SE of goal the main the was which economicbecomenot export-oriented has profileandproduction– 2012, by The benefits the new act has offered to this region are dubious. region this to offered has the new act The benefits trade. exception of or cars) wholesale retail goods the (with and cise norsectors, could the ex it production coverof financial the and &gas oil the not could done be business Their in there. business up their of starting years three first the within roubles million) US$5 (around 150invested at million list they that privileges theseHowever, on from condition benefit could only firms lion total roubles, in i.e. billion, US$1 would invest bil 32 they (the have residents declared million US$120 around only to of amounted have 2012), investments far so their beginning and at the afew only dozen of 50 (around residents attracted investors, large to has only 51 50 49 48 Economic Zone (i.e. Special the residents) its in registered entities business the to taxes property income from and exemptions The ensured years. new act ten next for the therein leges ‘old’ registered of entities the zone the vested in privi the maintained time same at the and preferences new tax granted 2031, March 31 force in until remain to is which act, This exports. on production and into one reloading and focused assembly economic on profilebased liningrad’s Ka changing budget and federal far, so the expenses, reducing existing abuses the at liquidating aimed into force was on came 2006, which act, A new SEZ short period of tax exemptions of tax period short the and investment value, the in charges lease the include to of apossibility lack the include reservations Their unattractive. rather of are operation rules

clared investments exceeded US$200 million. million. US$200 exceeded investments clared de whose beans, of soya processing and cultivation for the of a plant construction the was investments largest of the One 2010. in atotal as region this in invested Twice was much as years of their operation in the SEZ, and will pay only 50% of these taxes for six years after that. that. after years for six taxes of these 50% pay only will and SEZ, the in operation of their years six first for the tax property the and tax income corporate the from exempted are Residents reviews/2011/03/05/02 http://www.tks.ru/ For see more, projects. of some case the in short too is exemptions of tax period the Furthermore, investment. the in included be cannot charges lease For example, centage points go to the regional budgets). regional go the to points centage per 18 of which 20%, currently is Russia in tax of this rate (the tax income corporate of the part greater the does as budgets, regional to goes tax property the while budget, federal the go to duty customs from revenues Federation, Russian of the Code Fiscal the to According 51 . All the residents registered in the ‘new’ the in SEZ registered residents the . All 50 Z. TheZ. implementation new law of has the ). new investors’SEZ’s opinion,the the In 49 . The new SEZ, which offers . Theprivileges which new SEZ, T he region’s 48 ------. 35 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 36 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 the region and its residents. One example of this is the price of gas, the keyraw price the of gas, the is of example this One residents. its and region the by incurred forcosts the compensate to fully unable government are federal the However,Moscow’s region. by offered benefits this the economic towards policy element of budget important an federal the are Subsidies subventions from and 2.1.2. no longer of are SEZ 1996 force. in the ofoperation on the to apply regulations 2017–2031, in i.e. transition when the begin zone forcould need develop to which about the the new rules discussions Moscow and have involved been intensive in Kaliningrad 2011, Since spring decision. its Moscow changed that then only It of was rest Russia. the to region this from exports withheld exclave the turn, for in months; two duty on were imposed Kaliningrad goods from excise and VAT of which aresult as region, this in conditions existing special consider the to failed of 2001system fiscal Russian of Similarly, reform the the maintained. were privileges their that and included was appropriate regulation an that Moscow were forced in ensure elites to intervene to business and political cal region’sintoLo consideration. benefits customs Kaliningrad the notdid take Belarus and Kazakhstan Russia, between union acustoms established which of 2010 For documents acts. the example, of legal federally-binding preparation by Moscow’s exacerbated region’s of the its disregard further during privileges have exclave been the The within problems economic for operating entities the 52 four times by almost fallen has share foreign capital with region this of in companies number a consequence, the sectors). these As disregards (the act sector new SEZ ones) services the and foreign (including medium-sized firms and small– the region: veloping the in mostrapidly de were the then until which duction of entities for support the re the been has rules SEZ the in change consequence of the The mostpainful ‘old’fered by the zone of 1996. of privileges 2016 the by using until compensate disadvantages for these will

with Polish capital. Source: Rosstat 2010, and data from the Polish and Lithuanian consulates. Lithuanian and Polish the from data and 2010, Rosstat Source: capital. Polish with 106 and capital Lithuanian with 194 including 500, around was share capital foreign with nies of compa number estimated the 2010, basis). In on aduty-free region this into imported be to goods enable to established only and were reality, in operate didnot which firms, sham were (some of them capital Polish with 500 and capital Lithuanian with 600 over including 2005, in region this in registered were share capital aforeign with companies 2000 Over

location C ompensating for the costs resulting from the region’s from the resulting ompensating for costs the peripheral 52 . - - - - - from the central budget central the from funds to developed and thanks modernised been has airport Khrabrovo ture. development and infrastruc road of modernisation the the and power plant, and TEC-2 heating of the construction the include decade past overexclave the Theimplemented keyprojects the oblast. in developmentthe of Kaliningrad supporting in instrument important budget an to be central are from the Moscow’s to According large declarations, infrastructural projects funded 2.1.3. also. abroad travel to it for easier of residents Kaliningrad makes This for them. helpful very is turn in which Lithuania, through of transport) means cheapest (the by of rail Russia regions other the to travel to necessary are which ports, for foreign pass charges from of exempted residents Moscow Kaliningrad has much time. too take low they too and is frequency government, their promoted of federal rest Russia by the the and railway and connection between Baltiysk–Ust–Luga between connection ferry and railway direct the goods transport, regards As limited. is Europe), number their and to of flights costs Western the than (sometimes higher high still prices are their 55 54 53 budget state young the people from elderlydren, and subsidised people are for Petersburg chil to Moscow Saint and Kaliningrad from tickets air though Al intensified. be will contacts such that do of not rest Russia guarantee the and Kaliningrad between introduced transport forstate the Thewhich benefits average prices. Russian than higher are region this prices in gas the Lithuania, and Belarus via for transit gas charges exempted from recipients are gas regional Although region. this in energy for electrical producing material federal government has also fostered more intensive use of the exclave’s more fostered of intensive use the also government has ports federal traffic). to open The already is section Kaliningrad–Zelenogradsk–Khrabrovo (the underway is airport the and seaside by the holiday the resorts and grad

a railway ticket. Similar support is also offered to Russian citizens living in the Far East. East. Far the in living citizens Russian to offered also is support Similar ticket. a railway as expensive as twice than more is ticket air Thediscount limited. is prices at discount of seats Thenumber US$220). (around roubles 6600 Petersburg–Kaliningrad ingrad–Saint Kalin and US$240), (around 7200 cost Kaliningrad–Moscow–Kaliningrad running ticket adiscount 2010, December of 18 ordinance government’s Russian the to Pursuant a land trip to via Lithuania and Belarus takes around 25 hours. hours. 25 around takes Belarus and Lithuania via Petersburg Saint to trip a land while hours, 36 lasted port to port from travel and aweek, twice went 2011, In route. Kaliningrad–Ust-Luga on the rates transport preferential introduced Railways Russian Avia, went bankrupt in 2009. The region had only seven direct connections in winter 2011/2012. 2011/2012. winter in connections direct seven only had Theregion 2009. in bankrupt went Avia, KD- carrier, local the since fallen has connections of direct number However, the &Europe. CIS the in twenty and Russia in airports thirteen with connections direct had region this 2008, In

Federal infrastructural projects in the region the in projects infrastructural Federal 55 . The construction of Kalinin ahighway connect to . The construction 54 () oblast) (Leningrad 53 ------, 37 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 38 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 struction firms). Furthermore, decisions on the investments and their details details their and investments the on decisions firms).Furthermore, struction Rosatom con (Gazprom, implemented and ing LUKoil, corporations by federal be predominantly are region the in projects infrastructural The large tities. en business of local marginalisation the and exclave capital’s positionthe in of federal strengthening However, the is most cases. of asource dissatisfaction in elites have welcomed projects Therefore,been regional these by the terials. 58 57 56 years havefor made been several ports German clave and ex the between connections ferry regular establish to Attempts vessels. vilian for open ci basins two with port, amilitary primarily is Baltiysk port. this in complex built railway was and aferry and modernised, was port Baltiysk the to track approach the end, To Klaipeda). this (mainly states Baltic of the ports the compete with can (Russia’s they Sea) that so Baltic on ice-freethe only ports jor part of the investments of basic capital in this region this in of capital basic investments of the jor part account which for projects, for ama these funds possible been It allocate to has World Football of the hosts Cup,of 2018. potential in Russia held in be to put by Moscow list also on the was of The Kaliningrad city haveregion begun. this of power in plant anuclear construction forAdditionally, the preparations and regional subcontractors regional and energy), jobs creates people for (new local of sources electrical security ergy improvement exclave’s the of and the en embankment) port the and railways of networks roads, the concerns especially (this of infrastructure its ernisation mod the development and to the exclave. It itself region of contributing is the the broughtto The benefits implementation has numerous projects of federal 8). (see decade chart past the in Russia throughout observed expenditure investmentin increase the from benefited has oblast Kaliningrad Federation. the Russian in condition of public finances

cheaper connections to . to connections cheaper offers port Klaipeda the At present, low profitability. their due to suspended been have tions connec but the 2007/2008, in direction that in made were trips Several Baltiysk. to Luga Ust- from route of the extension an be to expected was This 2011. in reintroduced be to also was Kiel and of Sassnitz ports German the and Kaliningrad between connection A ferry plant in the region is €6.5 billion. €6.5 is region the in plant power anuclear of constructing cost Theestimated US$250,000). (almost roubles 6.7 billion cost has (27 km) seaside the by resorts holiday the to Kaliningrad from highway of the tion sec first of the construction the and million), (over US$700 roubles billion 22.5 cost alone plant power and heating TEC-2 of the block second of the construction the For example, jects, and over five hundred residents of this region are employed in connection with it. it. with connection in employed are region this of residents five over hundred and jects, pro the for in preparations engaged are firms local thirty 2011, for May data to According 58 , and ensures demand for local construction ma construction for local demand ensures , and 57 56 , thanks to the good the to , thanks . ------120 150 was also received unfavourably by the region’s received by the unfavourably also was public and elite (see oblast box 5) Power Nuclear Kaliningrad Plant in Baltic The the decision to build 60 59 Source: region’s the to one major of impediments the development The region. consequent power shortage was supplies this to gas subsidising in monopoly gas not interested was on this for because years dragging alone, was by Gazprom financed initially was which project, The implementation of this region’sthe for ofsecurity. is keysignificance which power plant, and energy TEC-2 heating the is of example this exclave.One of the expectations the and elite’s Moscow, in regional opinion of the the taken considering without are C it. towards ill-disposed also project’s the are impact, adversefearing ecological public, process. The local decision-making the ignored during totally been had governor then Boos), (it by fostered the suddenly was they and taken been had decision the project because this with connection in reservations had elites 30 60 90

hart 8. I hart 0 the exclave), as well as regularly raising the internal gas prices. prices. gas internal the raising regularly as well exclave), as the in plant power nuclear the build to planning is (which of Rosatom asubsidiary RAO, Inter of engagement the to owing possible was plant power and heating of the The completion dum should be held on this issue. on this held be should dum areferen that demanded have members its region; this in emerged project this opposing movement Asocial standards. technical and ecological all with compliance out in carried was project the if it, mind not 26%would and project, of this implementation the favoured 19% region, the in plant power nuclear the building opposed respondents Group, 43% of the Monitoring Kaliningrad the by 2009 May out in carried polls opinion public to According 122.0 [%] 2002 Rosstat 2012 Rosstat 7.7 nvestments in basic capital in Kaliningrad oblast oblast Kaliningrad in capital basic nvestments in value ofinvestments real annualchanges, in% 93.8 2006 33.1 112.6 2007 52.7 134.3 2008 67.0 98.8 2009 [billions ofroubles] 53.7 59 . 115.0 60 2010 . The exclave’s 66.0 114.5 2011 69.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 - 39 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 40 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 2009–2015’. Power Nuclear of Rosatom Corporation the ‘Action for the or in Programme 2020’ 2008 government in approved until Russian Russia by in the Facilities of Power Location of the Scheme ‘General the in into account either taken not was plant for the sector: developing nuclear plans previous the the in not mentioned project had been this although 2008, promoted spring since been has oblast Kaliningrad powerThe a in nuclear plant idea of building Power Plant Nuclear Baltic the of genesis The Kremlin. the from support political strong to thanks ready begun, al project has implementation work the of to this connected preparatory of uncertainties, Germany. Despite these direction the in bed Sea Baltic acable along the laying Poland, (3) with connection (2) adirect building completed to be planned is by 2015); this bridge created; been has energy Polish-Lithuanian the (and possibly states Poland to after Baltic other the on to and Lithuania (1) through market: European the to export energy routes forthe supply. routesits for potential three Rosatom considering is recipients power or of produced to be plant, secured the by the potential 2012). (February far Rosatom Nor thus found plant has of the a shareholder However, sources. other from for energy no become private investor has demand need meet to the the and by 2022, power plants nuclear German decision to decommission context of the the in especially project, the ing investors join of German possibility hope on the special pinning is Russia circles. business Lithuanian and to Polish directed comeoffers uphas with for project; it example, private investorsthis in interest to trying been has Rosatom Furthermore, oblast. Kaliningrad power in plant the for building years two next the within would allocated be million US$400 which der un adecree signed Putin roubles). Vladimir billion Minister 2010, In Prime over cost US$6.5 Power (200 Nuclear billion Plant will Baltic of the struction Rosatom’s to According power plants. con regional the by other estimates, met is oblast’s for energy demand Kaliningrad because exported, be will produced be plant to by the energy Most of foreigners. the tors, including sold be private to inves will stakes remaining the and project, (51%) of this shareholder majority the be 2019. still and The(Rosatom)2012 state will by 2017,be to built the second between expected and is reactor The first Power Nuclear Plant. Baltic the in operate to are MW output of 2400 a total with reactors VVER-type government’s two the to According guidelines, C Box 5. haracteristics of the Baltic N Baltic of the haracteristics uclear P uclear ower P lant lant - - - - - N years. two within project implement to this million US$400 around allocating adecree signed Putin Minister Prime oblast. Kaliningrad in of town Neman the near site construction plant at the laid was 2010 cornerstone February –the oblast. Power Nuclear Kaliningrad Plant in Baltic of the struction the electrical system, etc. system, electrical the for infrastructure railways, aroad, constructing and melioration, devising site: construction at for project were made the rations implementing the prepa held; been had and Poland, Germany, in environment plant’s natural the on the impact concerning By early 2011 consultations Polish for market. RAO Inter the from of MW up energy 600 to chase pur could 2001, Poland since in operated Alpiq, has would created. be which Poland and oblast at 400kV) Kaliningrad between current (direct connection energy an purpose, For 2012. this by 1April Poland to analysed were be to ity electric economic for and on possibilities co-operation exporting technical the which under agreement an signed Germany. companies Additionally, the with oblast Kaliningrad the (800 connect to MW) ble for power transmission ca underwater for an on possibilities co-operation laying the on examining company Alpiq energy Swiss the Power with amemorandum signed Plant, 10 N field). this in AEM-Tekhnologii no experience (which has Kompaniya of Rosatom, ZAO Inzhenernaya by asubsidiary owned relia) Petrozavodsk from (Ka won Itplant’s held. by was afactory was reactors August 2009 August far). so operation in type of this designed eighteen units for power (itplant the plans has construction the of preparing charge in put was Petersburg, Saint from institute construction and adesign proekt, Federation). Russian the in power Atomenergo nuclear plants ten the all project (it the controls managing with ration Energoatom entrusted was plant’s completed be to was design before 2010. corpo The state-owned 2008 August oblast. government of the Kaliningrad with power plant’s construction the –Rosatom concerning agreement 2008 April aco-operation signed ovember 2010 ovember 2011 – – Prime Minister signed a decree on the con on the adecree signed Putin Vladimir Minister –Prime – Rosatom issued an order, according to which the power order, –Rosatom the an which issued to according – a tender for the construction of casings for the power for of the casings construction for –atender the

Inter RAO, the Russian investor in the Baltic Nuclear Nuclear Baltic investor the in Russian RAO,Inter the ------41 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 42 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 61 issues) (visa EU the from tourists and (distance) of Russia parts of residents other both to region impededaccess this to the prices, and their considering services the of seaside), low quality the Lithuanian Polish and or Sea the Black son the to (for compari in example tourists to attractiveness limited oblast: liningrad Ka the in development sector the to of this keybarriers consider to the failed zone (see Map). gambling and recreation However, aspecial and Moscow has zone tourist of creation a havespecial the included infrastructure tourist the context of developing exclave’sthe the economy. help to develop taken Actions in areas one priority of as the tourism recognised government has The local 2.1.4. because the profitability of such an investment was investmentdubious,greatwas an the duesuch to of profitability the because infrastructure the money on building spending have in not interested been Investors not realised. been still of Yantarny town has the to next area bling gam and arecreation create to 2006 The in concept government devised the 2011. August of Economic Development brought zone a motion in the Ministry to close sian Rus the aresult, As found be onarea. much of the still can facilities military not ofWorld completely since been ofhas mines cleared remnants War and II, area this that fact the is impediment Another there. infrastructure any ing of develop World possibilities reduced the UNESCO has which Heritage list, on park the anational is area this Spit Furthermore, unclear. is Curonian the on land of the structure ownership the that prevented fact been by the has The investments signed. implementation was of document potential the since zone for the in five Not appeared investor asingle years has failure. ended in Spit. zone investors However, the to zone Curonian ist on the attract to plans tour aspecial government establishing adopted adecree 2007, Russian In the routes. along previously agreed and aguide, groups, with in cities seethe only can tourists a case such in and days ahead, several port sent to the are itinerary aplanned and of names passenger lists on condition used be only that can this by However, exclave ships. passenger the to who came tourists to 2009 fered in of was of for hours stay avisa-free 72 For possibility oblast. the example, grad Kalinin of case the havein no positive had they effect conditions that many

only a limited extent; they usually do not return after the first visit. visit. first the after return not do usually they extent; a limited only to services local use and groups, organised in region this to come usually tourists German realised. being –from visits ‘sentimental’ residents’ former to owing develop would sector tourist the –that 1990s the in had region the expectations the prevented have barriers These

D 61 eveloping tourism in the region the eveloping in tourism . In turn, the visa facilitations introduced for tourists are subject to so so to subject are for introduced tourists facilitations visa the turn, . In ------63 62 operation programme’s the five of first years the in excursions such in youth, took part of Kaliningrad’s people,60,000 25% around programme. of this part held as are Russia es in plac mostinteresting the to Federation. excursions Educational Russian the of rest the to feel attached oblast young of residents Kaliningrad make to is ‘We, of which Russians’, called purpose the aprogramme launched 2006 in of Education The Ministry regions. young people) Russian of other those and (especially oblast of residents Kaliningrad the between ties the strengthening at aimed primarily programmes social intensified MoscowSince has 2005, 2.2. government regional the from to appeals trary con Furthermore, clients. prospective the and region this between distance a new deposit located in the immediate vicinity of the beach. of the vicinity immediate a new deposit the located in from extraction upon amber embarked production plant, amber Kaliningrad of the owner the of Finance, Ministry 2010, Russian In spot. the that in cisely located pre are of deposits which richest the production, due amber to ists for tour limited is beaches (see 2.3.). accesspass the to section this, from Apart aspecial requires which to access zone, entrance restricted the located within is of Yantarny, town facilities, well-developed relatively tourist coastal with far, so holiday of the problems. anumber resort encountered The mostpopular also has region this in areas The development special outside the of tourism etc.). trafficking, drug levels, crime (increasing it itcause impact could have fears a negative social project be this private owners). from governmentland dislikes The regional need duebuy to the to (partly it made eveninvestment less which attractive meaning of the term. of the meaning broad the in on patriotism, classes attend people 2000 (around annually) pants 2010. since oblast The partici Kaliningrad in haveof organised Russia been

ru as of 1 January 2010). of 1January as ru www.molod39. from (data 248,000 is region this in people of young number The estimated well-developed road, power supply and other infrastructure. infrastructure. other and supply power road, well-developed the and port, existing the of developing possibilities airport, of an proximity the to owing lower much be would project of the costs possible the Sea), where Baltic the by (a resort Svetlogorsk near moved be to for this appeals making been has government The regional

T he policy of reinforcing social ties with the rest of rest he R policy the of with ties reinforcing social 63 . Furthermore, camps for camps young people all from . Furthermore, 62 , Moscow chose a site for this , Moscow a site chose for this ussia ------43 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 44 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 of Russia rest the and exclave the element between a bonding as treated been has region this in faith Orthodox of the reinforcement the USSR, collapse ofSince the the of Kaliningrad. adistrict congregation in formerly Evangelical ing by an used in a build region, this in opened was church Orthodox first the 1985 that in only It 1946. was after were closed pre-war) region faiths Catholic the and in belief religious (the predominant Protestant by the owned Churches time. Church Orthodox the to churches, Catholic and former Evangelical mainly buildings, 2010 decidedhistorical in offer which to of tens administration, Kaliningrad’s levels of at various taken decisions to continued thanks recently process has this 2010). (up region in 80 around to this in Furthermore, parishes Orthodox gious properties were to be returned to their previous use previous their to returned were be to properties gious into force, reli which came under organisations religious to tion of property 66 65 64 R of rest the region and the between ties of building ment strategy of the S more, the change of ownership of of some ownership former places delayed of change more, worship has the Further heritage region. of the cultural the upsets this that claiming Church, Orthodox the to of ownership transfer the against protested has telligentsia in For Kaliningrad’s to restitution. example, subject premises of the many in operate public, controversies public since among great the institutions raised

trengthening the position O of the the trengthening

ussia. ussia. chia.ru/db/print/592484.html. www.patriar of Moscow Patriarchate Zemle’, of the website Kaliningradskoy na voslaviye ‘Pra see Russia’. to For details, more oblast Kaliningrad ‘linking as to referred themselves hierarchs Orthodox the policy, which of this asymbol become has of Kaliningrad squares main of on one the Saviour the of Christ Church monumental of the The construction the interests of the Orthodox Church in the regions, had a great impact on these decisions. decisions. on these impact agreat had regions, the in Church Orthodox of the interests the for lobbying successfully been who had Russia, of All Patriarch the I as of Kirill The election library/id_2995.html http://www.scepsis.ru/ oblasti, vKaliningradskoy goda 2010 sobytiya privatizatsii”: vnoy o“tserko ‘Istoriya Karpenko, A. and http://www.scepsis.ru/library/id_2847.html ingrada’, Kalin kulture po V. see ‘Udar issue, Ryzhkov, For on this more Putin. Vladimir Minister Prime to Merkel Angela Chancellor from intervention of apersonal because list put on the not It was Kant. to amuseum is now and Kaliningrad, in cathedral Protestant the once was which abuilding over take to wanted also Church TheOrthodox episcopate. Russian of the head the from aprotest despite changed, been not has decision However, this hall. a concert as used now is which Kaliningrad, in church of ahistoric restitution for the for years ing apply been has Church Catholic the turn, In list. the from removed was monument this Grybauskaite, Dalia president, Lithuanian the from aprotest Following poet. and pastor aLithuanian Donelaitis, Kristijonas to amuseum now is which church Protestant a former included properties the of list The conflicts. supra-regional two to gave rise also Church Orthodox the to of ownership Thetransfer 2010. on 19 November passed was law This 65 The Orthodox Church has been present in this region for a very short for region short avery this present been in has Church The Orthodox . This decision was passed shortly before a federal law on the restitu law on beforethe afederal shortly passed decision was . This 64 . One effect of this policy is a significant increase in of thenumber in increase significant is a policy this of effect . One rthodox C rthodox hurch is a significant ele - asignificant is hurch 66 . These decisions ------access to these zones. to these access foreigners’ the concerning have restrictions on no impact the will oblast, of Kaliningrad territory entire covers the formally which July and 2012 documents, and were apprehended and punished were apprehended and and documents, required zones holding of without the borders these the crossed unknowingly when agencies people investors. cases There have and have many been sular for were supposed haveavailable to con made they been although available, not zones commonly of maps are notthese zones marked; of are borders these the that fact the posed is by one). difficulty days obtain to additional An sixty much as as to ten from (it passes takes zonesspecial move using these across 70 69 68 67 border state alongthe five-kilometre-wide the strip for ontions access foreigners apply. may not enter countries of other Citizens restric of whose territory a region part over is alarge oblast Kaliningrad 2.3.1. 2.3. region’s of residents moneyfrom the donated by associations former Prussian or projects of European as part either financed renovation work, was which pose. pose. pur for highway built this the via have city no go to right the to formally air by zone. People access who have arestricted comethrough Kaliningrad to runs also seaside, the and airport to the of Kaliningrad city the connects highway few the years, region overpast which the this in ments made the and a large part of the coastline of the Spit part alarge and Vistula the region’s of the ofone-third section Russian entire territory, the including over around extend total in which oblast, access zones apply Kaliningrad in restricted other Furthermore, impediment. aserious –is region of this area

tion of the church in (formerly Arnau) financed by German organisations. organisations. German by financed Arnau) (formerly Rodniki in church of the tion renova and programme, Neighbourhood CBC the under Neuhausen) (formerly Guryevsk in castle the restore to of funding reasons for formal withholding the are of this Examples doc_1_4_009.htm at http://www.fstec.ru/_docs/ available is text Its 1991. of 4July government Russian of the ordinance the in provided is for foreigners zones access restricted of the The list which is located in a restricted access zone, and forced them to turn back. turn to them forced and zone, access arestricted in located is which Yantarny, in Holocaust of the victims the to devoted celebrations attend to going were who consuls-general, German and the Polish detained officers militia 2009, February In kaliningrad.html kaliningrad.html at http://www.rg.ru/2006/07/14/ available is text Its 2006. of 2June Service Security Federal of the ordinance the in provided is oblast Kaliningrad in zones access of restricted The list

to the regionto the T

T R he policy of restricted access forhe access policy of restricted foreign partners he local border traffic regime with P with regime traffic border he local estricted access zones which was introduced in in introduced was which oland, 70 69 . O (see Map). Foreigners may 68 ne of the largest invest largest ne of the , which – given the small small –given the , which 67 - - - - - . 45 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 46 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 voyage fourteen days in advance, and for the shipowner to have to arepresentative shipowner voyage for advance, and days the in fourteen sidethe of the Russian to notify requirement the is forflags heading ports Polish other countries’ ships under of traffic the to impediment Another tion reasons. protec lagoon onor border the environmental for the close to defence, security right the reserved has Russia Furthermore, or Kaliningrad. of Baltiysk ports the in cleared be only goods can that fact the and infrastructure developed coastline the poorly- isThis to due thesewaters. in traffic of revival about significant any not has brought this someof a although(2006–2009),break years after fic again traf Lagoon foreign to maritime agreement). Vistula the the opened in Russia this to ensure (although Moscow undertook cleared be could ships where the no checkpoint is border there because waters may ships not enter Russian anian Lagoon, Lithu Curonian of the case the In practice. in limited is waters these 73 72 71 oblast’s territory Kaliningrad 90% of covering foreigners the to land of thesale on the ban investorsforlimitation is significant Another 2.3.2. services. border by federal undermined usually is procedure border.at the do not However, workthis because practice, in regulations these immediately receive to allowed visas are them with co-operate which entities representatives of the and resident status investors with regulations, the to According practice. not includes) in observed act vestors SEZ are (which the for introduced foreign in facilitations visa Furthermore, land. lease only can open the Curonian Curonian the open decided to Moscow has formally Spits. Although Vistula the and Curonian the on both neglected being is policy, developmentof this the infrastructure of port aresult As reasons. for for foreign vessels security restricted be should which access waters, to internal its Lagoons as Curonian and Vistula the treats Russia

sev and districts). For more, see http:// For see more, districts). Gvardeysk and sev Gu Chernyakovsk, (the regulations these by covered not are km2, of 2700 area atotal have which units, territorial three only 2011, of 9 January decree presidential the to Pursuant www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/komunikaty/UMOWA_zalew_tekst%20polski.pdfhttp:// term; five-year another for extended be automatically can and for five years signed was The agreement agreement. the Polish-Russian signing date of the on effective became documents Both Lagoon. Vistula the in traffic on ship agreement an signed Russia and Poland 2009, http://government.ru/gov/results/7562/. 1September ports: On Polish from and to ing go ensigns civil third-country with ships Lagoon for Vistula the of part Russian the in traffic admitting ordinance an signed Putin Vladimir minister prime Russian the 2009 15 July On sng.allbusiness.ru/BPravo/DocumShow_DocumID_139845.html sng.allbusiness.ru/BPravo/DocumShow_DocumID_139845.html http://www. year; another for extended be automatically can and of five years for aperiod signed was The agreement 2009. in April it ratified parliament TheRussian 2007. cember De on4 signed was Lagoon Curonian the in on traffic agreement The Lithuanian-Russian

Moscow’s stance on the use of the Vistula and C and Moscow’s Vistula of the use on the stance 72 and the Vistula Lagoons Vistula the and президент.рф 73 for sailing, maritime traffic in traffic maritime for sailing, /acts/10033. uronian Lagoons uronian 71 ; foreign citizens ; foreign citizens ------grad, and offer significant facilitations in comparison to the visa regime visa the to in comparison facilitations offersignificant and grad, or to Kalinin from Lithuania through transit in travelling citizens Russian to have regard applied These on documents introduced 1Julybe with 2003. would Document Transit Rail aFacilitated and Document Transit a Facilitated that agreed it was cow’s , and Vilnius long tough negotiations with and 75 74 of R rest the and oblast Kaliningrad between travelling situation, Given this Lithuania. state, involved of border member aEU land the crossing by trip the since of rest Russia, the to and states member EU neighbouring the to travel both to oblast Kaliningrad residents itfor made of more difficult Union. This accession European the to before their shortly 2003, in oblast) Kaliningrad to also (and thus Russia to regard with regime avisa troduced in Lithuania Poland and region’s after EU the this with concerning contacts key issues among the are exclave for of residents this Travel facilitations Lithuania. Poland and countries, neighbouring its with order first the in Union, and European the with co-operation to oblast ingrad ofOne Moscow’s Kalin up process the of control to opening is priorities the 2.4.1. 2.4. materials. construction and coal carrying barges to it limited is in Lagoon’s aconsequence, the traffic As the Russia. notand in is used, potential region (including Governor Nikolay Tsukanov Nikolay Governor (including region the E the to travel to oblast it forHowever easier of residents Kaliningrad making to make Kaliningrad a ‘pilot’ region in the process of establishing a visa-free re a visa-free process of a ‘pilot’ establishing the in region Kaliningrad to make

Facilitated Rail Transit Document is issued free of charge. free issued is Document Transit Rail Facilitated The border. Lithuanian-Russian on the control passport of Lithuanian time at the issued is itself trip.document The planned the before latest the at hours 24 office ticket railway the in application an submit should traveller the transit, of rail case the In service. sular con Lithuanian the to Document Transit Rail Facilitated Document/ Transit Facilitated an apply for must Kaliningrad or from to Lithuania go to through who wish citizens Russian national media (see: http://www.governors.ru/?statja=191161). and local for the made statements numerous in and 2011, September on 21 Warsaw in mittee Com Co-operation Parliamentary EU-Russia the of meeting the during first.ru/?p=88969), http://kaliningrad (see: Russia to ambassador Polish the Zajączkowski, Wojciech to ample, for ex of Poland; representatives with contacts in both appeals such made has Tsukanov countries T uropean U uropean

Moscow’s approach to Kaliningrad residents’ travel residents’ Moscow’s approach to Kaliningrad he policy of controlling region’s the co-operation other with Moscow focused its efforts on ensuring facilitations forpeoplefacilitations ensuring on its efforts focused Moscow nion has not been Moscow’s not been nion has priority. The government of this 75 ) has issued numerous appeals appeals numerous issued ) has After Mos After ussia. 74 . ------47 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 48 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 who hold visas. Schengen multiple-entry by representatives circles, of business particular in trade) have expressed been frontier engaged small in by individuals jammed being points crossing border in July 2012 in May 2012). in State into force Duma The came Russian agreement the and 2012, the Sejm agreement Polish of (the March ratification voted in endorsedit the (see 2011 box December have 6).ment states on 14 two of the The parliaments agree traffic border local abilateral signed ofRussia Poland and ministers foreign the and accepted by Brussels, was 2011 in The Polish-Russian proposal country’s latter territory. of the cover part alarge this would as side, Lithuanian the arearule on to a comparable traffic border local the extend to proposal the against objections raised Lithuania time, same agreement). arranged At the already not government the chose sign to Russian the negotiationswere 2009, (in over, when Russia the with agreement traffic der bor local the negotiating anegative it had because experience had initiative this not did join Lithuania forum. EU the to initiative brought countries this two the wide). long 108 km 205 km and Moscow’s by Warsaw, backed was proposal and is area total (the beyond regulations EU goes region, which entire significantly the to extended rule be to traffic border for local the proposal the up with in 2010came of Foreign Affairs Ministry belt),metre-wide frontier Russian the (visa-free applicable movement the a30kilo zone Schengen in regulations with line in Lithuania with effect this to agreement an negotiating previously been 78 77 76 oblastliningrad zone, Schengen of borders apply to the Ka to external along the area frontier visa-free rules, which the envisage movement in traffic border local forforts the ef intensified Moscow has Instead, Brussels. with talks in not raised been has Moscow, government in by the not issue backed been the has and proposal this Federation. However, Russian entire Union the and European the between gime to ensure smooth local border traffic border local smooth ensure to sufficient be will infrastructure border existing of the capacity the whether

http://www.migrant.info.pl/pl/pobyt/wjazd_do_polski for example, See, consulates. by issued permits of special basis on the border the cross regions of frontier km). Residents 50 to extended is this cases exceptional (in region der bor km-wide a30 within applies movement visa-free regulations, Schengen to According for example: http://www.kaliningrad.net/news/49259/. see others; among parliament, regional of the members by expressed been have fears Such tion on May 25, 2012 (president Putin signed it on June 16, 2012). 16, it on June signed Putin (president 2012 25, on May tion ratifica the endorsed Duma State 2012). TheRussian 4, it on May signed Komorowski dent (presi 2012 16, March on the agreement of ratification the endorsed parliament The Polish 77 . At the same time, doubts have been raised in the region as to to as region the in doubtshave raised been time, same . At the 76 . At the same time, Moscow changed its tactics; while it had it while had tactics; its Moscow changed time, same . At the 78 . Such concerns (especially about the about the (especially . Suchconcerns ------this issue. Putin then stated that it was unacceptable to offer to privileges unacceptable it“visa was that stated then Putin issue. this on capitalising merely been Moscow has that may Juneindicate 2011 in summit Russia-EU the before immediately oblast Kaliningrad the in regime traffic der bor local the idea of the introducing criticised Putin Vladimir that The fact 79 should thus be seen by Russia as asuccess for as by negotiations its seen Russia be thus should and itself, Russia from requests to response given in was which oblast, grad Kalinin the entire extended to be to regime traffic border consent for local the EU’s fromthe Moscow to reaction of official any lack the be could assumption rightthe is this that confirmation have earlier). not used been ania, Further Lithu with example for regulations, theSchengen under offered facilitations delayed(the been has years several for regime traffic border plementing local for im not apriority Moscow, been that has proved be fact by the can which issue This itself. in agoal than rather Brussels, with talks its in tactic tiating a nego to be appear oblast for Kaliningrad of residents the facilitations visa For ambivalent. plemented, be to Moscow, seems Moscow’s issue on this stance im been has with Poland relations in regime traffic border local the Although

Mrągowo, Węgorzewo, Olecko. and Giżycko, Gołdap Kętrzyn, Olsztyn, Bartoszyce, Braniewo, Lidzbark, Elbląg, Malbork, ( counties the and Olsztyn and Elbląg , of cities Gdańsk, PolishSopot, side on the to the and oblast, Kaliningrad the entire to extends agreement traffic border The local Republic of holder the Poland. in the work to abusiness orthorise run months). does not six au every permission This days within ninety than days (but no longer for thirty Poland uninterruptedly in stay to allowed are over traffic border 16 65). and under local who the use The individuals peopleto charge €20 of (free and fivecosts and two ofyears, riod between for Polish ape consulate by the issued is border the cross to The pass gime. re traffic border from a benefit to local entitled are years for three at least who oblast have lived there of residents Kaliningrad agreement, Under the and P oblast Kaliningrad between traffic border Box 6. Local raised officially. officially. raised not was proposal Russian the accepted having EU of the issue 2011), yetthe (1 August public made been had decision the after days two oblast Kaliningrad visited Medvedev Dmitri President decision. Commission’s European on the comment not did Moscow in Politicians powiaty ) of Puck, Gdańsk, Nowy Dwór Gdański, Dwór Nowy Gdański, Gdańsk, ) of Puck, 79 . oland oland - - - - ­ - - - - 49 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 50 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 (LT-PL-RU) programme (CBC)Cooperation Border Cross for land-based Lithuania–Poland–Russia the million €132 allocated framework for 2007–2013. Brussels financial EU the envisaged in two have could programmes from oblast benefited Kaliningrad 2.4.2. Package). Energy Third called so- the (such as Russia to unfavourable are which provisions change to forts ef its including areas, other in regulations EU modifying successfully with concessions. Moscow ready experience make to its is may use Brussels which to extent the Moscow’s at as establishing seen be aimed can tactic negotiating oblast) Kaliningrad the entire to regime traffic border local the of extending that as EU the(such forum at thebeyond applicable regulations significantly go which proposals Moreover, of Russia. citizens making for all requirement visa the ongoing the in EU negotiations on lifting on the a form of pressure E the by support offered to benefitfinancial from oblast Kaliningrad the –, –ortions inaction R of its ac aconsequence As oblast. Kaliningrad the including neighbourhood, EU’s the located in regions Russian with co-operation cross-border covering it programmes EU-funded took on the stance the was EU the from neighbours of Moscow’s manifestation control region’sAnother of the its with co-operation between eleven countries between co-operation at intensifying aimed was The EU’s Region Programme Sea Baltic project. plementing the Moscow’s im programme, delays in have CBC serious caused based actions land- of the case the in turn, In Region Sea Programme. Baltic of the part as offered funds receive to have entities unable been the EU, the Russian with However, Agreement programme. due Moscow’s to aFinancial sign to failure 82 81 80 others” of the expense oneto at region the

uropean U uropean

nia-Poland-Russia programme see: http://www.lt-pl-ru.eu see: programme nia-Poland-Russia Lithua Policy. For on the more Neighbourhood EU’s European of the instrument an is CBC ne-budet-dobivatsya-vizovyh-privilegij-dlya-kaliningradskoj-oblasti http://kaliningrad.ru/news/item/12142-putin-rossiya- for movement). example See free visa- as them to referred he (although rules LBT the to references made Putin time At that Russia. See http://eu.baltic.net/ See Russia. and EU), Belarus the with closely co-operates (which Norway with together ; and Poland Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, , Estonia, Denmark, states: member EU Eight

Moscow’stheregion’s influence on co-operationcross-border nion. ussia has limited the possibilities for entities possibilities from the limited has ussia 81 , and €217 million for the maritime Region Sea Baltic maritime for the million €217 , and 82 in the Baltic Sea basin, covering the management of management the covering basin, Sea Baltic the in 80 . This statement may be seen as as mayseen be statement . This - - - - ment was in progress. It offered financial support of €44 million, €44 of support Itfinancial offered progress. in ment was Agree when late 2008, work project for in Financial the preparations on the stagethe of final at the programme involveddecided becomethis to in directly process. The Kremlin this in observer an merely Moscow was were discussed. region’s the with whom exclave’s the government, with needs problems and consultation in programme of priorities this and goals The setthe EU gramme. pro Lithuania–Poland–Russia of the part as oblast for support its Kaliningrad took EU adecision continue to when the 2006, in began agenda for Kaliningrad 84 83 oblast Kaliningrad and countries two these covering of programme anew support part provided as been have also funds Union, European joined the Lithuania Since Poland and TACIS programme. EU’sthe of as part people. were financed between projects Earlier, these tacts con fostering and co-operation, their opment intensifying of regions, frontier project (for CBC land-based of 2007–2013)the devel tasks the include The main 2008). December (31 EU setby the deadline before the Agreement due projects, Financial Russia’s to these the from were excluded sign to failure were no longerand they 2009, support from EU ablefrom benefit to starting benefited. However, also oblast) Kaliningrad from extent alarge to (including Russia north-eastern in EU, entities which by the from supported region this in continuation of actions the previous as were to help implement tasks such Region Programme Sea Baltic of the for 2007–2013 part by as Brussels allocated development security.The improving funds and transport resources, marine mentation of the programme still could not commence because Russia deemed not could Russia commence because still programme mentation of the The imple 2009. autumn were concluded late issue as as this concerning tions presence. The negotia conducted audit Russian accepted was where the the country the on condition albeit that project bodies, auditsheld by EU in EU) (upon co-participate to the from invitation opportunity given the Moscow was negotiations, of the aresult control money EU, As of spent. the the including as process decision-making the in rights it same have should that the demanding

co-operation between Russian frontier regions with Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Norway. and Finland Estonia, Latvia, with regions frontier Russian between co-operation concerning programmes other four are there oblast, Kaliningrad to addition In regions. sian Rus- concerned which EU’sprogrammes CBC the all to support financial offered The Kremlin operation brought about 162 projects. projects. 162 about brought operation co- of TACIS. This part as granted was more million €8 and Fund, Development Regional the European by offered funds the from Programme Neighbourhood oblast) (Kaliningrad Federation Poland–Lithuania–Russian the to each million €12.3 allocated Lithuania and Poland 2004-6, In assistance. technical and communities the between co-operation ture, infrastruc of cross-border development and modernisation for the allocated were funds Its region. CIS the in reforms pro-market and democratic at supporting aimed TACIS was 83 . The process of preparing anew . The process of preparing 84 and started started and ------51 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 52 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 and communities and governments local between cross-border co-operation closer – establishing instrument of goal this main the of achieving chance reduced it the project, has the oblast’s co-creating representativesin role Kaliningrad of the the alising margin by Furthermore, funds. havecould EU from which sations benefited organi other and NGOs government, the local –the exclave of the interests the to contrary acting Thus been Moscow has Region Programme. Sea Baltic the from Russia excluding and efficiency its reducing programme, CBC Russia Lithuania–Poland– implementing the delays in caused fact in has operation co- cross-border towards taken Moscow approach a consequence, has the As turned a technical instrument into a political one into apolitical instrument atechnical turned thus and financing, the in project dependent on CBC participation its of the launch the made Moscow has Instead, for areas. frontier programme own its andeffective more solution create bebetter to would Russia for A definitely difficulties. formal to given only rise has and unnecessary, been has gramme EU pro engagementthis in point ofRussia view, Brussels’ From financial the programme. this decide could close to Commission European the that risk is a there the programme, under financed audit projects of the have Russia) of procedure not the and choice able on been and the agree to ania (Poland, Lithu parties Since the have selected. been programme of the part as subsidised be to projects the after available would made be of funds stalment in adequate an that announced only It has programmes. cross-border for the allocated of funds its transfer 2012) (as the of delaying February Moscow still is 87 86 85 2012 ary by Febru implementing them not possible it been begin to has and June 2011, of receivedbe to LT-PR-RFas part started applications Theject. first as lateas pro this to contributed delaying significantly has taken has Russia approach previously employed projects). July CBC 2010. late as in as happened The This anew solution, (which Agreement was not Financial the it ratify to had that

tariat in Belarus (in Brest), whose task would be to promote the cross-border programme. programme. cross-border the promote to be would task Brest), whose (in Belarus in tariat Secre Technical Joint of the abranch open to decided it was Belarus, and EU the between tension political serious despite 2011, April late In programme. Poland–Belarus– the is project similar of a functioning the influence not need of politics how example One and Norway in which the Russian Federation is engaged. engaged. is Federation Russian the which in Norway and Finland Estonia, Latvia, with programmes EU’s cross-border the by encountered been also have facing, been has programme Lithuania–Poland–Russia the those to problems Similar by Poland, Belarus and Ukraine. and Belarus Poland, by implemented being project asimilar in 2011, May in began of applications intake The second 85 , five years since the commencement of preparations for the project. the theproject. commencementfor , fiveof since preparations years 87 . 86 . ------activate contacts between the exclave and its EU neighbours. For years appeals For appeals neighbours. EU its years and exclave the between contacts activate helpcould Union, which the European with regime visa the liberalise to efforts by manifested primarily is This Sea. Baltic Union the and European the to ity The The July 2011. in oblast liningrad Ka to visit Medvedev his during PresidentDmitri to submitted was changes 88 Administration of Presidential head of deputy the envoy, presidential rank the of special with governor its status and the trict, dis federal of aspecial status the oblast Kaliningrad grant to aproposal with up came parliament) local of the members (including Kaliningrad from cians Moscow. in lobby to for interests its them more of successfully Agroup politi Federation, would allow which Russian the within region position of their the reinforce to efforts have elites making been Kaliningrad’s Furthermore, elites. regional of the possible marginalisation the extension and by capital, influence of big federal increasing the and curity se ecological about both concerns to given rise power has nuclear plant of the construction for the example, itself: region controversies to the in given rise havealthough them some region, of the major economicto bring) to benefits (or intended bring are also these like projects Large infrastructure. road and airport of the modernisation Power Nuclear the Plant and Baltic tion of the construc the include investments of Examples such facilities. infrastructural large have modernise purposes) it made and possible to build for region the for designated specific projects of federal part as made those (including ments Secondly, economic global crisis. invest the federal during gations, especially regiontheto meet budgetallowedits from has Moscow support obli financial budget., central Additional the subventions from and subsidies ment obtain to govern regional Federation the allows Russian of the part as Its status Union. E by the region, surrounded location of this special by the also R of the asubject as oblast of Kaliningrad status the offered by opportunities the using in interested are elites Kaliningrad’s 3. 3.1.

T Moscow’s interests See footnote 43. footnote See

H regional elites T E T he interests of Kaliningrad he interests of Kaliningrad W O SIDES also want to capitalise on the region’s on the capitalise to want proxim location in also F T H E COIN : Kaliningrad’s interestsversus : Kaliningrad’s 88 . A draft containing such such containing . Adraft ussian Federation and ussian uropean uropean ------53 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 54 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 89 Federation Russian entire the to regard ment before doing with so require visa the it would a‘pilot’ EU lift for make the region, which and talks visa Russian-EU the location during special consider to Kaliningrad’s sels, Moscow Brus and both in decision to region makers this have from made been of the state bureaucracy, and contributes to their desire to be given a wider given awider be to desire bureaucracy, contributes their state to of and the excessive role the criticise to them leads which rights citizens’ of their aware and more enterprising are oblast of residents Kaliningrad time, same At the one key expectations. is of the system healthcare regional the in situation the Improving twenty years. the past over transformation dergone effective an have which un states, member EU neighbouring the in those and region this in standards living the between disproportion of the awareness byened the strength are have government. These of they expectations the expectations among the predominant are claims improve. to region Social the in standards living allow will conditions which create government will the that expectation their in expressed are oblast of residents Kaliningrad of the The interests increase. to abroad, from investments, especially of influx develop, to region an and this would allow This of expire. 1996 act SEZ of the regulations transitional economy, the after ofneeds Kaliningrad’s especially would the to give which due entities, respect developed be to regional for the Moscow lobbying in for are elite new privileges business local the and ernment gov regional Therefore, capital. the representatives of federal mainly region, investorsa consequence,the offered to from economic outside are preferences As regime. special the have from recently excluded been until region the in mostactive were the which sectors the small; is region this whose in number investors, large to are only available The benefits extent. alimited only to ests inter their serves SEZ of the present functioning ness representatives, the busi of local perspective the From circles. business to much less importance of are region’s for country compensating the of rest the the from separation at aimed privileges goals, these bureaucracy.to comparison and In corruption would curb long and the term in activity business their plan to them enable would economic of which One of elite’s the legislation, stability is top priorities dependent is on Moscow. extent alarge to which investment climate, the ing part, For their

ingrad (for example, MP Solomon Ginzburg, kaliningrad.ru Ginzburg, Solomon MP (for example, ingrad Kalin from politicians other have as 2011, September on 21 Warsaw in Committee operation Co- Parliamentary EU-Russia of the meeting the during 2010), recently November 30 most Itar-Tass, see (for example appeals such made regularly has Tsukanov Nikolay Governor local business circles business local are principally interested in improv in interested principally are , 20 October 2010). October , 20 89 . ------or political issues, such as visa negotiations. For visa Moscow, as such issues, location unique or political the Union), West the security European in (the NATO USA, the it and be regarding atool ofas its foreign policy, on its partners to put pressure principally oblast Kaliningrad using been has Moscow NATO states. and EU member region’sthe by by intensified exclave is surrounded tion policy an as location Moscow’s centralisa its oblast, with stick to urge of Kaliningrad case the In control regions. over the administrative and political financial, stricter imposing to down boils policy centralisation the aspect, regional the In entities. autonomy business and political of other the limit power and centralise to desire concept on the This based is Putin. to Vladimir linked elite thepolitical by country’s defined logic of the rule, the general with fitin oblast Kaliningrad to Moscow’s regard with interests 3.2. lower. are there from goods of bringing costs the and of Russia regions other to travel of their costs the which to subsidies, thanks transport even increasing and maintaining The region’s in travellers. blocked by numerous interested also are residents be could checkpoints border existing that theyfear as concept, traffic border region’s the local that oppose the though, elites said, business be to It has Poland (see in counties frontier big box 6). and cities several as well as oblast, Kaliningrad version adopted the entire intended cover to is as the especially Lithuania, and neighbours, Poland their with regime traffic border of alocal introduction the including regime, existing the within acceptto facilitations ready are remote, is they However, perspective Russia. and EU the this since solution movement would visa-free for be The them optimal between liberal. more regime existing the make could which facilitations travel any support would oblast The akeyissue. of is residents EU Kaliningrad the to barriers travel pointthe of view, this From lifting non-governmental organisations. with collaboration and co-operation education business of abroad, services, transfer trade, travel, to linked advantage of opportunities cation by taking lo special from benefit to its want also oblast The of residents Kaliningrad power’, Federation. on average Russian the than across regions), ofson other to lower visibly ‘party for and the support United Russia, (in compari parliament regional the in parties of political number of agreater creation the been has area thepolitical in competition, oneand of effect which aneed for pluralism entails economic. also This scope of especially freedoms, Moscow’s to regard Kaliningrad interestswith - - - 55 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 56 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 faction the economic privileges and subsidies offered to them them by Moscow, offered economic subsidies to and privileges the the faction satis accept Federation with and into question, Russian of the integrity the have oblast not called of residents government Kaliningrad and the Although 3.3. budget federal revenues high the to prevents it yielding from tial lowits and economic poten of deposits no raw large materials, has region this limited; are oblast Moscow’s Kaliningrad to regard with economic interests activity. &civic political , and elections from Russia’s, those different concerning are which including standards, pean oblast’s the more residents receptive would to make states member EU and Kaliningrad between Intensive contacts of rest Russia. the and oblast grad Kalinin between bonds loosen could the this that fearing neighbours, EU its to more region open this solutions any to would make why which it ill-disposed is is This oblast. Kaliningrad residentsthe fields of for cultural and cio-political point so of in reference most important the to remain Russia Moscow wants elections). in good achieve results elite federal the to linked candidates and ties par the that sure making public unrest, (preventing issues political and social regards as all of first regions, the in situation astable maintain to desire the of priorities Moscow’s the issues, include policy internal regional regards As region. Baltic the in market energy the Russia’s reinforce to Power desire Nuclear the Plant is Baltic position on the ing for one reason build strategy; security energy element of Russian important an also is policy. Kaliningrad US security the Poland) backing (including from countries European supposed Central discourage to is This oblast. liningrad Ka in launchers deployed missile and station Iskander aradar built has Russia plans, these to response In Europe. Central in defence system US missile the of deployment Poland) elements envisages (such as which the of strategic tries coun European Central United policies States of and the security the to regard with including games, geopolitical in chip by Moscow abargaining used is as potential This potential. country’s the military reinforcing thus region, this in infrastructure developing been few Moscow years, military has past the Over of for defence. Moscow terms in importance of is strategic oblast Kaliningrad as a whole. Russia with conditions for co-operation beneficial develop mutually Europe) and with of integration vanguard the in (which put could Kaliningrad EU the with relations deepen to opportunity not is region much so an of the

T he conflicts of interests between Kaliningrad and Moscow he Kaliningrad conflicts interestsbetween of ------linked to the federal government elite have achieved in elections. have government in elite achieved federal the to linked politicians and below-average parties the as the well which ment, as results govern central of policy the the against targeted partly protest actions odical Kremlin’s policy. the peri setin orities by the caused is The centre’s anxiety pri meet to the failed has Kaliningrad in situation socio-political the turn, In region. this in active are which medium-sized businesses and small the regard dis Economic Zone, additionally Special which the concerning regulations ing chang problem the region’s is of the example this An needs. with real patibility economic issues)incom its concerning and (especially of legislation instability regions) the is for Russian many (which typical is of disagreement area Another with Poland. region this in regime traffic border of alocal introduction negotiated Union), the instead European has entire and movement the with visa-free it apilot for region establishing making (such as states member EU neighbouring the with contacts its concerning proposals Kaliningrad’s port status). Nor it did sup district Federation it federal (for by example, granting Russian the in status region’s the administrative need strengthen see any to region’s this Moscow exclave. with does not location, the howconcern deal to implemented. be should policy of Theseopinion primarily differences regional Kremlin’s way the about the disagree still region the government and central ------57 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 58 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 90 EU the and Russia for both importance tegic stra has Kaliningrad that claims Brussels relations; these in treatment special awhole. as Russia However, with lations region’s the it location ensures unique element of it re an is EU, Federationfor with and co-operation the sian regions, one Rus of as the primarily oblast UnionThe perceives Kaliningrad European 1.1. 1. II equal participation of EU member states, the Russian Federation, Norway and Russian the states, of member EU participation equal It envisages the area. this in term) of the development broad meaning (in the sustainable ensure to regions Arctic and Sea Baltic the in co-operation closer at establishing aimed apolicy 1999,is in initiated Dimension, The Northern Federation. Russian of the regions north-western the along with initiatives, these in participates oblast Kaliningrad Region. Sea Baltic for the Strategy EU the and EU the Dimension of theframework the Northern of within fied speci is oblast Kaliningrad with co-operation scale, macro-regional the On of people goods. and transit the facilitate to were launched development and of infrastructure modernisation border for the programmes Furthermore, region. the of from goods to and for transit the rules included turn in 2004 in made EU. joined The the common arrangements Lithuania after of rest Russia the and oblast of people Kaliningrad between transit facilitate to Federation agreement an signed Russian Union the and European the 2003, In issues. environmental socio-economic and regarding especially macro-region, Sea Baltic the cohesion entire the of ensure to efforts making is EU However, the of rest Russia. hand, the and other region on the this between peopleof and transit goods effective an Federation by ensuring Russian of the ty integri territorial the need respect to the emphasises Brussels one hand, the On states. member EU neighbouring the in to that region up to alevel similar this in bring living standards time awhole, as same atsia should the and with Kaliningrad oblast should serve to intensify co-operation with R co-operationwith to intensify serve should oblast Kaliningrad with

. EUROPE regional_issues/kaliningrad/index_en.htm http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/russia/eu_russia/fields_cooperation/ for example See

CO Kaliningrad in the E the in Kaliningrad and its neighbourhoodand EU - OPER ’ S PERIP A TION H ERY DESPITE : T uropean U uropean he EU DI ’s region relations the far so with FF nion’s policy ICU 90 . The EU declares that relations that . The declares EU L TIES : Kaliningrad Kaliningrad : us ------may also benefit from all the programmes in which the Russian Federation’sthe Russian in which the programmes all from benefit may also oblast Residents of Kaliningrad 2.4.2). I, section seepart (for more details programmes implementing to these impediments many also ever, are there of Russia). regions north-western other How Region the Sea (with Baltic the only) oblast and (Kaliningrad Poland–Lithuania–Russia programmes: border cross- two place within take may also oblast Kaliningrad with Co-operation of it. part as launched initiatives the in interest strategy, it shows no particular the in participating Moscow formally is although and Russia, to unacceptable role minor is seemingly This members. EU of the partners co-operating only be may macro-region of this countries Other of action. directions and priorities who decide on the participants, may full its be states member only EU that it as assumes failed, has strategy this oblast ofever, Kaliningrad case the in of How co-operation. platforms and partnerships initiatives, existing the ing by compil area, this in countries the between revive co-operation and dinate coor designedto initiated, Region was Sea Baltic for the strategy aEU 2008 In events. training and youth exchange as such projects, soft so-called the are there implemented successfully usually are that projects the Among 2012. in underway implementation its for still pletion scheduled is 2005, was 92 91 policy of creation this the in networks in Kaliningrad, which was first announced in 2000 announced first was which Kaliningrad, in networks water-and-seweragethe and heating aimed at modernising a flagship project implementing delays in have serious caused nature problemsexample, of this For difficulties. many encountered therefore has cooperation this ments, and require co-financing projects’ of meetthese to many failed side has Russian However, areas. these the all in projects in part haveeducation taken facilities, higher and public governments, institutions local and regional namely oblast, Kaliningrad from Entities Dimension. Northern of the implemented part are as and justice affairs internal healthcare, and security social culture, and search ecology,operation, defence, safety, nuclear development civil re of scientific

governmental organisations. non- and organisations supraregional and regional Bank, Investment Nordic the and Bank Investment European the Development, and for Reconstruction Bank European the namely institutions, financial of Ministers, Council Nordic the States, Sea Baltic of the Council the include: Direction Northern of the part as taken activities the in engaged entities Other opment Co-operation Agency (SIDA). Agency Co-operation opment Devel International Swedish the and Development and for Reconstruction Bank European the by entities, EU with along Itfinanced, is total. in million €25 worth is The programme 91 . Projects in the areas of economic co- areas the in . Projects 92 . Although com Although . ------59 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 60 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 administration), with a total budget atotal of €6.7 with million. administration), (e- administration the local of qualifications project for the – the improving contribution of EU €9.5 an million; with region, the in plants sewageof treatment the modernisation for co-financing programme – the million; contribution of 2009), EU in €3 an with in Gusev the sewage treatment plant (opened of the construction – co-financing million; €13.3 of tion oblast’s Poland 2010), (opened December with in contribu border EU an with point on in the crossing border road of the construction – the million; €8 of tion (opened contribu 2009), EU in an oblast’s Lithuania on with the with border point crossing border Chernyshevskoye high-capacity of the construction – the include: region this in projects EU largest ofExamples the 93 entities), co-operation academic and business context of handling the in (especially region’sof the administration potential HIV/AIDS the addiction, drug tuberculosis), increasing and teracting coun (including healthcare efficiency, energy and saving energy improving medium-sized businesses, and developing small system, management border integrated an and Sea), Baltic the developing infrastructure border tion in the pollu monitoring and (sewage plants environment treatment natural the ing protect as: areas on such The focused is region EU’soblast. for support this Kaliningrad framework to aid (2007–2013)million of €50 offers rent financial exclave’s The cur the stimulate to socio-economic growth. TACIS programme EU’sthe under offered were funds million €25 of which million, €100 mately approxi totalled 2006 1991 and between oblast for support EU Kaliningrad Erasmus Mundus. Tempus and programmes educational the as envisaged, is such participation

higher-education institutions annually). annually). institutions higher-education foreign visit oblast Kaliningrad in universities from teachers university 150 (approximately exchanged being also are workers Academic oblast. Kaliningrad in schools education er high from of students hundreds by received are grants of foreign kinds various year, Every 93 . ------95 94 oblast the Sweden and within Germany, Latvia Lithuania, agencies of Poland, consular by the supported also is co-operation This oblast. for Kaliningrad partners are ) and cities (, ernments gov levels. Local local and regional place at the takes Sweden)and usually Poland,Germany Lithuania, (including or neighbourhood close immediate its located in states member EU the and oblast Kaliningrad between Co-operation relations. of framework bilateral the within also and initiatives, and grammes pro EU within neighbours its with co-operating been has oblast Kaliningrad 1.2. environment the to protect activities on co-financing focused programme akeyEU LIFE, from for projects six €2.5 million ble obtain to possi only it region, was this in programmes huge for environmental demand bureaucracy. theexample,local of the despite For inefficiency the and petences com events,insufficient due co-financing problemsto with arise co-operation to Barriers successful. be project will the that engagement does not guarantee contribute 10% themselves). However, government’s even the cases many in must of they projects, cross-border contributioncase (forown the in example, their for ensuring access funds to easier and co-operation international ence in have more experi State organisations non-governmentalorganisations. than EU the from funds obtaining in morepublic been successful sector, has which the is regionthe predominantly EU’s the in aidof beneficiary The immediate the areas of economic, social and cultural development; an intergovernmental development; intergovernmental an cultural and of economic, social areas the in oblast Kaliningrad on with agreement co-operation ation into an entered Feder Russian the and 1991 In Lithuania established. was Oblast Kaliningrad for of of Co-operation Polish-Russian Regions Council Poland with the which under oblast, of Kaliningrad provinces Poland and north-eastern the between on agreement co-operation intergovernmental an signed Russia Poland and 1992, In co-operation. regional concerning of on agreements anumber based are relations bilateral countries, by signed individual additiontreaties to In

there. representatives have Armenia and Belarus countries, CIS the Of oblast. Kaliningrad in sent pre also are Denmark and Italy of , consuls Honorary of Poland. Consulate the in office his has consul its At present, 2011. until Kaliningrad in consulate own its had Sweden ronment/life/ http://ec.europa.eu/envi For see more, billion. €2.14 is budget for 2007–2013 programme’s The regions. and countries forty in billion of €4 atotal worth projects of 2750 plementation im for the fund LIFE the from 1992–2006 in allocated were billion €1.36 For comparison, Kaliningrad’s contacts with its contacts neighboursKaliningrad’s with EU 95 . 94 . ------61 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 62 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 the frontier provinces of Poland and in Lithuania as part of this co-operation of this part as Lithuania ofin provinces Poland and frontier the been engaged on the national and federal state levels, and also via German German via also levels, and state federal and engagedbeen national on the It exclave. has the with co-operation in interest shown also has Germany oblast. lived what present-day is in and Kaliningrad born who was Donelaitis, Kristijonas poet Lithuanian of the birth of the 2014 in anniversary 300th for the preparing are Lithuania and intensively; Russia developingalso heritageis historical and fieldculture of the in Co-operation 99 98 97 96 Euroregions of the part as and institutions, between agreements partnership municipalities, of and cities partnerships as such agreements, and deals onlocal numerous based also are Kaliningrad concluded Lithuania’s 1999. Poland’s in was with and oblast contacts liningrad of Ka regions the and regions Lithuanian on between agreement co-operation funds from other sources other from funds institutions),andand by obtaining offerederation regions, by municipalities for co-op &funds exchanges school and for co-operation academic (grants ity capac own their within both to continue co-operation, efforts made have also oblast) Kaliningrad border which regions their (and especially Lithuania and Poland CBCprogramme, the in implementing Given difficulties the Lithuania. for 2007–2013 budgets comes the of from programme Cooperation Poland and EU’s for the allocated Cross-Border million €132 of the One-third oblast. grad Kalinin of from town participation the with region, Sea Baltic of the museums and castles route along the tourist of creation the the is taken allocated for this purpose in 2004–2006 in purpose for this allocated was million of (a €46 EU for by total the co-operation cross-border allocated Lyna-Lava).funds and by financed been Joint haveextent projects agreat to

ments take part in the creation of aEuroregion. creation the in part take ments govern regional and of local Representatives regions. neighbouring their and Union pean Euro of the states member between co-operation of cross-border aform is A Euroregion TACIS allocated €9.5 million to Kaliningrad oblast as part of this pool. pool. of this part as oblast Kaliningrad to €9.5million TACIS allocated cal Theatre and the Jaracz Theatre in Olsztyn have been planned. planned. been have Olsztyn in Theatre Jaracz the and Theatre cal Musi Kaliningrad’s between co-operation Day and of Victory anniversary on the veterans of war meetings the Lagoon, Vistula the in regattas of the continuation the events, bition exhi joint in participation For example, 2011. in enterprises for common plan a three-year signed & Mazury the and oblast Kaliningrad contacts, these to Thanks Foundation. Freedom the Polish-American by offered grants of part as Kaliningrad, in centres support psychological with Centre Mediation Elbląg the of co-operation the and developed; and restored been has Königsberg in Museum Prussian of the collection of the catalogue the of which part as of UNESCO, auspices the under Russia and Germany Latvia, Lithuania, of Poland, participation the with years for many mented imple been has which project, archaeological Ostbalticum the are of this examples Good 98 . For example, ‘Kaliningrad Days’ are celebrated Days’ in are . For ‘Kaliningrad example, 97 ). One of the examples of the actions ). actions of examples the of One the 96 (Baltic, Neman, Saule, Sesupe Neman, (Baltic, 99 ------. culture, economic development healthcare culture, and jects in this region this in jects implementing pro entities for base German organisational an as serves which House, Russian-German level projectthe at is federal The projects. main of the nature diverse and due number large oblast, to for support Kaliningrad man for residents of Kaliningrad oblast for of residents Kaliningrad available are of range awide grants and cities, individual and states federal level at of the function programmes rapidly: exchange quite numerous ing develop also people between are Contacts area. this in active especially are families their and region of former residents of this the Associations years. region’sfew ofthe past heritage the over have intensified struction historical recon the for now supporting Initiatives operate. hall aconcert and Museum Kant where the former cathedral, Kaliningrad’s restore have to used been The Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) Co-operation The Swedish International offered oblast. involved Kaliningrad strongly with are co-operation which in states member EU mentioned be among the also should region, the in situation cal ecologi the at improving aimed initiatives supports Sweden, primarily which 2011. in time were held eighth for which the Kaliningrad, in Days Ecology Russian-German the organises also Environment Natural for the Ministry youth policies. The and German tourism maritime, EU of the part as programmes intended at implementing European organisation an Forum, tary Parliamen Sea Baltic Southern Warmia-Mazury), have and the created nian WestSchleswig-Holstein), Pomera (Pomeranian, Polish provinces jointly with 104 103 102 101 100 Russia in active foundations Technical University, the only course of this kind in Russia in kind University, ofTechnical only course this the State Kaliningrad at the course studies post-graduatetwo-semester European the Institute, European Mehnert Klaus the is region this in projects German

institutions. other among Foundation Moellgaard the and Albertina, Umwelt foundation, desstiftung Bun Deutsche the DAAD, Service Exchange Academic German the by offered are Grants grad oblast and the German federal state of Schleswig-Holstein. of Schleswig-Holstein. state federal German the and oblast grad Kalinin from associations of medical projects joint through conducted also is Co-operation Foundation. Luxemburg Rosa the and Foundation Seidel the Foundation, Naumann the Foundation, Boell the Foundation, Ebert the Foundation, Adenauer the Russia: in offices their have which foundations to applies especially This demic Exchange Service DAAD. DAAD. Service Exchange demic Aca German the and of Education Ministry German the from support organisational with Foundation, Moellgaard the and Foundation Bosch Robert the by financed is The institute language courses, and also supports the German minority residents in Kaliningrad oblast. oblast. Kaliningrad in residents minority German the supports also and courses, language and events cultural it organises since institute, of aculture function the performs It also 101 . These projects are primarily linked to education, to agri linked primarily are . These projects 100 . It is difficult to estimate the total size of Ger size of the total estimate to . It difficult is 104 . German federal states (Mecklenburg and and (Mecklenburg states federal . German 102 . One of the higher-profile of. One the 103 . German funds funds . German ------63 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 64 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 105 registration of online possibility cedures, for the example of more up-to-date introduction pro the and consulates of the modernisation (for few years past more seebox 7), become the possibleto has owing which over the rising constantly been has issued ofThe visas number fewer visas. office issue consular Latvian the and consulate German the oblast; liningrad of residents to Ka mostvisas the issue ofLithuania The Poland and consulates oblast). Kaliningrad in services prices of medical higher due the to tourists’ ‘medical as also and relaxation, for and rest (both tourists as and Lithuania), Poland to and weekend shopping trips (popular purposes forEU commercial the to travel usually oblast noticeably less frequently. Residents of Kaliningrad oblast Kaliningrad visit states member EU of the citizens while contacts, these in account oblast for traffic most of the of residents Kaliningrad that noting developing rapidly. also Germany, are and It worth is Poland,Lithuania mainly EU, the in neighbours their and region of residents this between Contacts region. investors his to welcoming foreign in interest expressed and oblast, for Kaliningrad cilitations fa of issue visa the raised governor consistently the has states, member EU neighbouring the to visits of his occasions the On Lithuania. to visits paid also has continuing. Nikolay Lagoon) Tsukanov also is Vistula the in regatta sailing ‘Cup the ofGovernors’(a Provinces, Three joint &Mazury Warmia the and an governors governor Pomerani oblast the of the and Kaliningrad the between meetings May 2011). in Braniewo to of The informal motorcycle initiative rally in thePoland-Kaliningrad part (he took unofficially and visits on official both The Poland to occasions, on region. governor numerous visited nor has of this gover 2010,nominated was September since sified when Nikolay Tsukanov have These inten contacts neighbours. EU its and oblast Kaliningrad between government conducive is regional of developing to The the openness contacts people-to-people at building aimed contacts. programmes and initiatives in participants as and projects donors as small to both operation co- in participate active; they of Sweden also regions The are southern oblast. Kaliningrad in plants sewage and treatment sewage and water infrastructure of modernisation and construction for 2003–2007 the in over US$17 million use various kinds of visa facilitations, such as free-of-charge visas for children for children visas free-of-charge as such facilitations, of visa kinds various use

to obtain a visa from the moment of submitting the application. application. the of submitting moment the from avisa obtain to on average days business four it takes consulate, Polish the from information to According 105 . EU consulates also also consulates . EU ------106 EU the in used that to system Lithuanian need adjust to the the with connection in Lithuania power via of electric transmission the and structure, development the as of issues infra border such need to regulate the entailed this questions, transit from EU. would join Apart the Lithuania, Poland and region’s the neighbours, that made decision was immediate when the again region the in interested became Brussels deepening. from standards living in The differences EU’s on havethe preventing focused area. been actions poverty into aEuropean turn could exclave the that EU the in concerns raised 1990s the in region the The in economic decline standards. living its raising and oblast economic development the in Union interested The is of European Kaliningrad 1.3. accommodation). for payment of proof (instead of ahotel reservation declare to requirement or the 12, under of the supplyof the region), of components the Poland in assembly from for and car (it aresult is for accounts which over Russia, to 30% of Slovakia’s exports total Slovakia from recipient of goods, important especially an is region This oblast. went of which Kaliningrad to 7% around billion, €90 approximately reached 2010 in exports The of value these Russia. to a recipient as of exports EU tance However, region’s the in EU significance is limited. limited. is an consular office issued 6500 visas (50% of which were multiple-entry visas). (50% multiple-entry whichwere of visas office6500 issued consular an Latvi the and 20,000 visas, approximately issued consulate sas), German the vi before; were multiple-entry year 40% of these the as 2010 many (twice as in visas 40,000 approximately issued The Polish consulate visas. tiple-entry were of mul which 37% visas, 55,000 issued consulate 2010, Lithuanian In the visas. 8000 almost officeissued consular Latvian the and 21,700 issued visas, consulate German the 2011, in visas most 83,000 of al a total issued consulate The Lithuanian visas. were multiple-entry 53,500 of which visas, 113,000 almost issued Polish consulate the 2011, In residents forBox 7. Kaliningrad issued Visas

tion to Russia http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/russia/index_en.htm EU’s Delega of the website the see oblast, Kaliningrad towards policy EU For on the more

E conomic co-operation conomic From

the EU’s perspective, Kaliningrad oblast is of is most oblast impor EU’s Kaliningrad the perspective, - R ussia economic relations ussia 106 . ------65 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 66 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 such as the Foreign Investors Association in the Kaliningrad region Kaliningrad the in Foreign Investors the Association as such active, also are of lobby entrepreneurs which interests for the Organisations oblast. development for the of Kaliningrad experts of international association Economic Development regional an Agency Industry, and the and Commerce of Chamber Kaliningrad These entities. the include local with cooperation help establish and region on the information with provide them which tions associa and Support for offered is organisations by foreign capital numerous Hamburg Chamber of Commerce in Kaliningrad. of in Commerce Chamber Hamburg ( Economic Relations European Eastern on the Committee supported by are firms Additionally,businesses. German medium-sized and small representing Club, organisation Business an Baltic 109 108 107 region this to Moscow), 10%went Russia of in Polish almost investments that meant which of city the Novgorod in invested the and Moscow more in only and oblasts, (Polish firms million at US$57 were estimated region this in investments ish Moscow, Moscow and oblast). Petersburg of end Saint Pol 2010, At the total after fourth came of Kaliningrad co-operation, of intensity (in 2010, terms in intensively quite region this involved. with co-operate entities Polish business more relatively context are this in oblast Kaliningrad border which states ber The mem EU similar. is country this in of investments EU proportion the sia; Rus from imports EU 1% of for accounts total region This less than vestments. in and imports forEU significance of is marginal oblast Kaliningrad turn, In active. increasingly Korea have South become and China from entities as lessening been has region (approximately 12%).role of few suppliers the this to EU years, past the Over in Lithuanian exports to Russia (approximately Russia to 6%) exports Lithuanian in role played region amarginal only this time, same At the oblast. Kaliningrad went to million) US$40 (around Russia invested in capital of25% Lithuanian of end 2010, entities; by the business approximately for Lithuanian destination

the Ministry of Economy of Kaliningrad Oblast. Oblast. of of Kaliningrad Economy Ministry the and Bank Central Lithuanian the from of information basis on the calculations, own Our Polish Embassy in Moscow, in http://www.moskwa.trade.gov.pl Embassy Polish of the Department Investments and Promotion of the website the see issue, For on this more from Lithuania. For more, see www.fiak.biz For see more, Lithuania. from predominantly countries, various from investors fifty approximately number members Its 107 . Kaliningrad oblast is also a relatively important investment important arelatively also is oblast . Kaliningrad Ost - Ausschuss 108 . ) and the Agency of the Agency of the the ) and 109 and the the and - - - - - 2.1. possible; this would include creating more ‘green would creating include corridors’ possible; this much as as border of the capacity and functioning the improving worth Union, it is European entire the with facilitation for quest visa the in and Poland with regime traffic border local implementing the in prices. Both visa the reducing ofand long-termissued, number the visas increasing (invitations, vouchers, money for travel), requirements formal ducing the re time, wait visa the shortening more flexible: requirements the make to Federation, and Russian the and EU the between regime visa existing of the liberalisation agradual seeking Therefore, Poland. in it worth is ited areas covers only some lim traffic border Union need local not because made, be European the to travel in facilitations visa introduce to efforts that mean However, 2.4.1.). I, section implementation its see part issue does not this (for introduced been more Poland has on and oblast Kaliningrad between regime traffic border local the hand, other the remote. On seems still sia Rus and EU the between of regime avisa-free prospect the and barriers, technical and have political numerous encountered These talks relations. mutual their in of regime avisa-free introduction gradual fora plan the develop to years for attempts several have EU making been the and Russia 110 2.1.1. tiatives). ini involving and it regional in Kaliningrad government in local the with co-operation closer establishing level (such as local region) and the with of economic co-operation rules solutions, the and infrastructural services, movement the of as people, applies such issues to goods & especially (this level federal at both talks include should actions Their relations. of these development adopt must the adouble-track continuing to states approach member its and EU the neighbours, its and oblast Kaliningrad tion between principles ofSince co-opera the Moscow decides concerning on mostissues 2. der for travellers which have nothing to declare, and even considering the the even considering and declare, to have which nothing forder travellers

CO (Grzechotki-Mamonovo-2). Poland and (Chernyshevskoye-Kybartai) Lithuania with points crossing border road the at oblast: Kaliningrad with border on the at present functioning Two are ‘green corridors’

C

- S o-operation at the federal level federal the at o-operation OPER upporting bilateral contacts: visa and border issues border and visa contacts: bilateral upporting A TION W IT H KAL H G ININ R A D : C : onclusions for EU for onclusions 110 at the bor at the policy policy ------67 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 68 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 the cross-border co-operation programmes, and now Russia treats its financial financial its treats now Russia and programmes, co-operation cross-border the on Moscow co-financing it who was that insisted it stressed be must time, same At the Kaliningrad). in plants sewage the treatment with case the been (as has Federation Russian entire of the scale on needs the other lower than priority for it rejected be deemed aproject have to if is can Funds of funds. transfer the block it by later withholding EU, it the may and still oblast Kaliningrad tween Moscow.with be consent co-operation to Even Moscow if gives formal its arranged be issues must such andso projects, large for co-financing necessary funds no access governmentto the has local the that We aware be also must of interests. of view own its point the from unfavourable them byquestioned Moscow, deems latter the if be can signed even documents and arrangements declarations, any ernment, gov competences local the of the within fall cow. formally decisions Even the if Mos from only following approval passed be EU. can Most the decisions from equivalents of their those to comparison in more restricted are oblast ingrad Kalin government in competences local the of the that mind in bear should level, we authority local at region the this with co-operation When considering 2.1.2. context. role this in playcould essential an Germany, and for Poland,Lithuania oblast, example Kaliningrad with eration co-op in interested directly are which zones. states The member EU stricted re of these of marking proper 2.3.1.) lack I, section the (see and part territory oblast’s Kaliningrad of access for the one-third to foreigners restricted the be topic country. should for seven the Another days of discussion entering within stay their register forto requirement foreigners the Russian concerns firstly This travellers. to regard with requirements mutual in of symmetry lack the is Moscow with talks in raise should EU the which question important Another 112 111 crossings border inactive currently of reopening feasibility limited threat this exclave may pose for the EU is that of smuggling that is mayEU for exclave pose the this threat limited the minimal; is EU into the migration of illegal risk the oblast, Kaliningrad

news/49259/. namely Perly-Krylovouse, and in not now are Mikhalkovo-Zheleznodorozhny.which checkpoints border the on of traffic resumption for the pealed http://www.kaliningrad.net/ have ap parliament Kaliningrad’s of members traffic, border local of the introduction the following capacity infrastructure’s border the with problems on possible debate the In Frontex report, data from the Polish Border Guard Service. Guard Border Polish the from data report, Frontex

C o-operation between societies and local governments local and societies o-operation between 111 . In the case of case the . In 112 . ------thus reduce the energy security of P security energy reduce the thus force R 113 PCA-2) negotiation under (the so-called currently agreement principal the in included be should for which disputes, resolving for mechanisms EU-Russia economiceffective and co-operation regulations binding legally create to point of it of business, necessary view the is EU From EU), the in sector etc. most active (the enterprises medium and of conditions operation for small the ate better exclave’s access the to cre facilitate of investments, protection market, EU the improve to of proposals addressee main the be should it Moscow is reason, that For agreements. this international of level laws, and by decrees means federal at the regulated of doing are business, rules general or the foreign partners region’s principles of the the Most as economic such issues, with co-operation 2.1.3. programmes). CBC of the part as Agreements Financial the cow signing Mos mentioned problem with the already is of (an example which oblast grad Kalinin and EU the atool of between as controlco-operation in participation P N Baltic of the construction mentation the projectenvisaging of the imple come could the oblast from Kaliningrad with A major on relations impact level. regional at co-operation the intensifying level. Once approvedfederal may contribute byto Moscow, programmes such negotiated be at states) the also must member a wholeas individual its or with EU the for (whether Innovation with Partnership the and for Modernisation Partnership the as such areas, individual in sion. programmes Co-operation Commis the European offerto must support states member the and stance, adopt must EU auniform the agreement, the in included are business EU tect pro successfully which provisions that Tocompetition market. ensure on the economic improving and corruption lead could curbing to these as portant, im especially be will assumed implementation obligationshas of Russia the The context. this may prove in 2012, place helpful in take to is which WTO, tions with with tions ower P

resolving disputes between the EU and Russia. Russia. and EU the between disputes resolving for mechanism effective an introduce to policy, yetfails trade its in freedom great leges and privi numerous Russia it offers turn In states. member and its EU the for beneficial less and nature, in asymmetrical is 1997 in signed EU the and on Russia binding currently The PCA

T he intensification of economic co-operation economic of intensification he ussia’s position on the energy market in the Baltic S ussia’s Baltic the in market position energy on the lant. O lant. R ussia and Kaliningrad oblast; but other, oblast; on the it would rein Kaliningrad and ussia to establish closer rela closer to establish EU the it allow one could hand, n the oland, Lithuania, Latvia and E and Latvia Lithuania, oland, 113 . Russian accession the to . Russian ea region, and region,ea and stonia. uclear uclear ------69 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 70 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 ensure a greater diversification of energy supplies and transmission routes in transmission suppliesand diversification energy of agreater ensure could which connections, infrastructural and power plants own their ernising developing and &mod programmes, saving energy by introducing security energy up their on building focus to is region this in countries for the thing mostimportant the reason, ForRussia’s this markets. energy position on their strengthen Power Nuclear Plant may further Baltic of the tor, construction the sec gas and oil afew) Russian on rely heavily name the to which Estonia, and Latvia (Poland. Lithuania, countries Sea point Baltic of of view the From the foreign its partners. with relations closer establish to oblast Kaliningrad project in the need use to the fuel), as nuclear well and as technologies Russian of export the concerns especially (this foreign its activity intensifying in interest position of the foreign investors mayRosatom’s be stronger makes element which route far. so Another transmission not energy decided on has the recipients, and by potential declarations not clear given any been has importers, with ments not agree Rosatom any signed has routes for the transmission. its ensure to and produced plant by foreign investors, by the have to energy recipients EU of the i.e.tage co-financed be to of Russia’s internationalised, project be to need for this advan position negotiating by taking improve Rosatom their can with operation Power Nuclear co- Plant in Baltic the building Foreign in investors interested 114 Nord Stream as such investments, infrastructural other with ready arisen problemal has this ensured; to be needs investment costs rapidly increasing investor (Rosatom). state-owned dependence on the Secondly, from protection complete means realities for Russian foreign reserved investors, in been which has a 49% stake shareholders: minority of the rights of the guarantees pect investorstheex conditions offered by improved.Moscow the be to First, and them, to more attractive made project be to the investors expect prospective EU. However, the in balance energy the output contribute improving could to emissions), power gas plant’s nuclear low the levels of with greenhouse sources (which energy states fosters member by the policy plementation climate of the im EU, the and the power in for of electric demand increase Given planned the

Week investors’, East foreign to sector of Russia’s energy opening-up ‘Controlled Wiśniewska, Iwona For see more, 2006. in Gazprom it to relinquish to having and project of the control losing from company this protect to failed government Russian the with agreement term long- its and project gas and oil Sakhalin-2 the in Shell by held stake majority the ample, For ex calculations. on economic not and government, Russian the by taken decisions cal politi on the primarily depends success their that shown has far so investors of foreign participation the with Russia in projects energy of implementing experience However, the , 9 March 2011. , 9March 114 . ------­ - - further co-operation.further for potential the increase thus and doing stereotypes away in may result with people-to-people it contributes building to that which fact contacts, the also implementation here, mere but valuable of is the only agiven project which It collaboration. not is closer in interested also are institutions and munities governments,com whose countries, local neighbouring the concerns pecially development continueto operation the of people-to-people es This contacts. co-to openness its and oblast of Kaliningrad proximity the using It worth is 2.2.2. improve to soon. unlikely conditions for are co-operation existing the experience, previous judging because, from alonger timeframe within seen be need to Kaliningrad with co-operation and contacts these time, same on. At the themselves model to want public will and elites Kaliningrad’s which mation, positive of as examples transfor Lithuania) Poland and (especially states ber mem new image EU of the the contribute reinforcing to also contacts Bilateral exclave. the to Province meranian Po by 2010, representatives of visit the of autumn followingthe as Baltiysk and Gdansk between connection maritime the decision reintroduce to the is level regional at the contacts direct success of of these example the One ania. Lithu Poland and with contacts establishing in interest manager, his to and areputation of asuccessful has GovernorNikolay Tsukanov that fact the to ing may have co-operation of This become ow issues. concrete easier handling ful success contributes the to Lithuania, Poland and countries, neighbouring its of governments local the and oblast of Kaliningrad administration the tween be contacts good, regular adopted Maintaining aides. by governor its his and stance governed,on is the region on and how extent the agreat to depends oblast Kaliningrad The success implemented of with projects co-operation in 2.2.1. partners. foreign competences with co-operation support to limited its use Itbours. can government neigh does play the arole developinggional in with co-operation by Moscow, made are exclave re the the concerning keydecisions the Although 2.2. importance. would of be power especial nuclear plants own their Lithuania’s on Poland and building focus particular, In region. this

C

C R o-operation level at regional the ontacts between societies and local governments local and societies between ontacts egional political contacts political egional ------71 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 72 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 tion and reconstruction of the region’s historical heritage. Kaliningrad’s region’s of heritage. the Kaliningrad’s reconstruction historical tion and protec the to oflinked is co-operation sensitive, area albeit important, An grants. and internships exchanges, ing intensify and positive experience advantage of this taking It worth is change. ex engaged international in staff academic and percentageof of the students terms for of in rest Russia, example the to comparison in regard this in active more already are oblast Kaliningrad in centres Academic projects. educational by for joint achieved be The developing mostdurable results can co-operation countries. neighbouring to threat apotential pose and region the in situation social worsen the prevention, education) and will treatment, of (by it varieties unusual and influenza as well as tuberculosis, and / AIDS HIV as preventdevelopment to such the education. Failure and of diseases investments form of both the in area, this in support great needs region This crisis. a serious in is which oblast, Kaliningrad in system healthcare the tion in situa the at improving targeted of projects be could co-operation area Another public education and behaviour. promote to jects pro-ecological investment pro both of requires co-operation problems.kind This ecological region’s the resolving in interested tively trouble-free Moscow because also is mayrela be improved be area could region Sea ecology. is this in Co-operation Baltic entire the from exclave’s countries where the the area with co-operation CBC). the by Moscow, politicised such be One with too, happened can has as (although these, oblast Kaliningrad for with co-operation success in chance greatest the stand to appear apolitical as seen are which sectors in Actions implementation. ful success contribute their to government, may also competences local the of the within process is decision-making entire the that residents, and the to tance of keyimpor are objective resolve to problems is that their local that The fact oblast. Kaliningrad from organisations and institutions communities, of local the level at financed micro-projects) maybe prove can effective. These called Union’s European the From budgets (so-point of view, small with projects areas. mostcomprehensive possible selected in the changes of making task the oneself andsetting goals, determined at precisely funds and efforts targeting it worth is Kaliningrad, with When co-operating areas. particular in changes about significant may bring of participants number budget asmall a limited and with even projects that means oblast of size Kaliningrad The small relatively ------2.2.3. culture. awhole, as of Russia excessive bureaucracy, apoor legal typical and corruption level and, of competences adequate regional lack at the the include barriers Other required. is by Russia where co-financing projects, of European case the in especially to co-operation, may a barrier pose Kaliningrad from partners for of funds availability limited the However, that mind keeping in it worth is region. this in to developtourism chance greater offer a also heritage could historical the protecting in by Germany. Investments funded been mainly has which cathedral, of Kaliningrad’s reconstruction the as such be mentioned, can field positive this ofoccasion, in examples co-operation this On of investment needed vast. is scale the years, forneglected over sixty been has area sites. Since and this buildings historical of the maintenance and renovation reconstruction, the finance to for looking opportunities are they region; heritage of this historical the saving in interested are elite intellectual water transport on a broader scale in the future. the in on abroader scale transport water contracts), of use for service and the and (for construction ports example, the exclave’sthe for it since chance harbour, on co-operation modernising offers a the developmentin of opportunities economy. business seek also may firms EU regional of one the keysectors of the still is etc.).clothes, trade reason, For this products, goods (household chemical consumer other as well as products, al of agricultur food and It on imports relies experience. buttechnologies also and machinery not agricultural only exclave. The of lacks needs region the the satisfy to unable and underdeveloped food industry. Theseare and sectors ture agricul include fruitfully develop especially can where co-operation Sectors costs). (transit Russia of rest the to and (caused need EU standards) meet to EU by the to region this in access impededfor manufactured the products and market small its to due limited is attractiveness Kaliningrad’s corporations, of large perspective the from seen As market. Kaliningrad on the operating EU vestors the from in medium and small to mainly attractive be However, will co-operation this investments. and for imports demand high and proximity of geographical its EU;the from example, forbecause for partners beneficial be it can ation with by region Moscow, this to co-oper granted preferences of the attractiveness economy limited the and of Kaliningrad’s weaknesses numerous Despite the

E conomic co-operation conomic - - - - 73 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 74 OSW STUDIES 07/2012 ness to contacts and co-operation with their neighbours from the EU. the from neighbours their with co-operation and ness contacts to open their wouldknowledge stress residents, its which and region about the by spreading facilitated be also can Co-operation role Russia. in main play the still contacts direct them; with co-operation for establish to easier contractors makes it which firms, ofEU from presentations offers organise to ness circles websites). (for region by example, creating forthis busi important It also is for economic with co-operation on opportunities information disseminating and continue to collecting it essential is reason, For exclave. investors the in this of foreign associations and economic departments) the (especially consulates German), (predominantly industry of and commerce ofoperation chambers the exclaveis the in support of forEU business instrument effective Another renovated or reconstructed. need modernised, be to attractions tourist the and facilities, service accommodationand both regarding underinvested is sector This enormous. also are area this in shortcomings Russian although future, the become could in where co-operation closer area another Tourism be could Russia. and states member individual between lations re bilateral in EU-Russia level and the at both for Modernisation Partnership of the guidelines implementing the if support get could investments greater and exports EU oblast. Kaliningrad in growing is renewable sources and gies technolo energy-saving meters), water services, and gas cluding construction goods (in and for The exclave. materials demand the in services utility and prices of energy rising due the to become necessary has which oblast, ingrad Kalin in sector housing and utilities ongoing offered by the the modernisation also of are becometo regionthe engaged in for firms EU More opportunities A ga t a Wier Iw zb Ja on ow d a w Wiśnie s i ka ga -Mi Ro azga g w oż s ka a ------, , , ,

Centre for Eastern Studies Publication series

The Centre for Eastern Studies Point of View – short analytical studies (OSW) is an expert institution that presenting the opinions of our experts monitors and analyses the political, on current policy issues, published in Polish economic and social situation and in English. in Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, OSW Studies – large analytical studies Germany and the Balkans. devoted to major political, social and economic processes taking place OSW was founded in 1990 and is in OSW’s area of interest; published in Polish fully financed from the state budget. and in English. In 2006 the Centre was named in honour of its founder Marek Karp. OSW newsletters

Our studies are addressed mainly EASTWEEK – a weekly analytical newsletter to state institutions including the on Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Caucasus Chancellery of the President of the and Central Asia (published in Polish Republic of Poland, the Chancellery as Tydzień na Wschodzie). of the Prime Minister, ministries and government agencies, as well as the CEWEEKLY (Central European Weekly) – Sejm and Senate of the Republic a weekly analytical newsletter on the Baltic of Poland. States, , Germany and the Balkans (published in Polish as BEST OSW). We are particularly active in discussions concerning the OSW Commentary – a series of more European Union’s Eastern Policy, in-depth analyses concerning the most challenges to energy security, important events and developments in our as well as the political, social and area of interest (published in Polish economic transformation processes as Komentarze OSW). in countries neighbouring Poland. OSW newsletters are available free of charge, subject to subscription Many of our publications are available online at: osw.waw.pl