The Local Border Traffic Zone Experiment As an Instrument of Cross-Border Integration: the Case of Polish-Russian Borderland

Geographia Polonica 2018, Volume 91, Issue 1, pp. 95-112 https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0102

INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND SPATIAL ORGANIZATION POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES www.igipz.pan.pl www.geographiapolonica.pl

THE LOCAL BORDER TRAFFIC ZONE EXPERIMENT AS AN INSTRUMENT OF CROSS-BORDER INTEGRATION: THE CASE OF POLISH-RUSSIAN BORDERLAND

Iwona Sagan1 •Vladimir Kolosov2 • Dominika Studzińska1 • Maria Zotova2 • Alexander Sebentsov2 • Klaudia Nowicka1 1 Department of Economic Geography, Faculty of Oceanography and Geography University of Gdańsk Bażyńskiego 4, 80-309 Gdańsk: Poland e-mails: [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected]

2 Institute of Geography Russian Academy of Sciences Staromonetny pereulok 29, 119017 Moscow: Russia e-mails: [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected]

Abstract The main objective of this article is to offer an answer to the question whether introducing local border traffic (LBT) on the external frontiers of the EU is an effective tool for cross-border integration and development of marginalised border areas. The analysis was carried out in an area of particular strategic importance for the European Community and Russia, which is the Polish-Russian borderland. The study includes the analysis of political discourse supplied with the findings from the original survey revealing mutual perception of Polish and Russian partners. The authors drew special attention to the significance of delimitation of areas included in the visa-free traffic. The success of the four-year period of LBT zone’s functioning on the Polish-Kaliningrad border came as a result of modification of the regulations concerning the scope of the zone and the inclusion of economic regions otherwise heavily affected by the split in the functional dimension. The analysed region had the chance to become a model of national and local policies’ cooperation in border areas. The decision to shut down the LBT has proved yet again that socio-economic initiatives in border regions are deterministically dependent on the decisions of central governments.

Key words local border traffic • cross-border integration • Polish-Russian border • external border of the European Union 96 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka

Introduction from the border – contradicts the idea of the policy, in which the LBT zone is a tool for cross- Historical variability of Polish-Russian cross- regional integration. border cooperation provoked subsequent The policy of cross-border integration has phases of emergence and disappearance moved on from the premise of a LBT zone of alienated or co-existing borderland. The cre- as an instrument for compensating social ation of local border traffic (LBT) zone in 2012, contacts of homogeneous groups that were which connected the Kaliningrad Oblast and divided by state borders, yet only in such as- two Polish regions – Pomeranian and Warmi- pect could the very limited range of the zone an-Mazurian – by means of visa-free traffic, of visa-free traffic find justification. Integration initiated, for the first time, a third-degree in- has become the prime objective of the good tegration process, i.e. formation of an interde- neighbourhood policy, rather than simple so- pendent borderland. The dynamic and highly cial reintegration of border regions. Never- successful experiment of integration of the theless, the new interpretation of the function regions on both sides of the boundary was of the LBT zones was not followed up with any interrupted in 2016 with the decision of Polish modifications in the laws that shape the legal government to shut down the zone. framework for their creation. Expanding sub- Intense cross-border traffic in the LBT stantially the range of the LBT zone around the zone initiated the process of creating a cross- Polish-Kaliningrad Oblast border constituted border soft space (Allmendinger et al. 2015), an exceptional departure from the regulations i.e. a space integrated by grass-root activity governing the establishment of such zones. of its residents and economic entities, which The Polish–Kaliningrad region of Russia is simultaneously regulated by different, statu- border is the border of rather peripheral lo- tory planning, economic and social policies. calization to the main communication cor- This type of spaces emerges as a result of di- ridors and the border being mainly crossed rect physical proximity of areas that belong by local inhabitants. However, it is of global to different administrations or governances, significance. Glocality of the local border be it local, regional, or national. As such, traffic zone is reflected in the utilization of its they are socially produced specific spaces, international and global meaning for achiev- independent from political and territorial divi- ing the local interests. An attempt to interpret sions. Soft spaces are functional regions that the highly complicated, dynamic and fragile do not necessarily correspond to the existing cross-border interactions as well as regional functional links. Their development is con- policy between Poland and Kaliningrad Oblast ditioned by different administrative systems is taken in this paper. existing within them. The formation of soft The authors pay attention to the impact spaces anticipates establishing of functional of asymmetric and asynchronic developments links resulting from new directions of devel- on the formation of cross-border functional re- opment that are expected to emerge from gion between Kaliningrad and the Polish ag- the new situation and/or initiated changes. glomeration of Three Cities – Gdansk, Gdynia The abolition of the visa regime, along with and Sopot. The introduction of the local border some new opportunities for activity it had in- traffic (LBT) regime changed the lifestyle in the troduced in the LBT zones, doubtlessly gives borderland. For Kaliningrad citizens it opened a strong impulse for formation of such areas. a much easier access to Europe. The loosed However to set off the mechanism that forms border regime reduced functional distance be- a soft area it is necessary to delimit a LBT zone tween Poland and Kaliningrad and in a broad- so that it covers the potential of social and er sense, between the European Union and economic links that exist on both sides of the Kaliningrad. Although in many cases the cross- frontier. Strict adherence to the arbitrarily border cooperation programmes are realized defined range of the zone – 30 km or 50 km independently on each side of the border

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 97 which turns them rather into the near then the in the local border traffic agreement, which cross border activity. The problem of the asym- allowed to evaluate the effects of introduc- metry in the programmes realisation is well ing visa-free traffic in the studied borderland. analyzed in scientific literature (Melnik 2006; Interviewees included representatives of lo- Tanaka 2006; Sebentsov & Zotova 2013). cal authorities, NGOs, and entrepreneurs. Among the main explanations of the situation In 2013 a survey was carried out among the are: the institutional inequality between part- residents of Polish border zone and 250 ques- ners, insufficient level of civil society develop- tionnaires were collected. Also, a survey was ment, the lack of specialists able to compile conducted among citizens of Kaliningrad and to manage international projects. Oblast who visited Tri-City. Its purpose was On the base of the analysis it can be stat- to gather opinions of Russians on tourist attrac- ed that the border started to be perceived tiveness of Tri-City agglomeration. The survey as a resource in local economy after the LBT took place in November and December 2013 introduction. A number of border localities on a border crossing point connecting Tri-City gained a chance for development. Gdansk, with Kaliningrad, obtaining a n = 462 sam- which had been included into the LBT zone, be- ple. Additionally, a survey was carried out came a new border town. Benefits of an early among the residents of Tri-City (n = 402). This stage of the border regime loosening were allowed to evaluate local border traffic from obvious for both regions. Nevertheless, the the perspectives of all the citizens impacted cross border interactions cannot be fully justi- by the LBT agreement, both from major urban fied, at the stage they reached, as integration centres and those from smaller border towns. of two neighbouring sides into, the unavoid- The information was complemented with the ably specific, but actually one border region. data from Russian and Polish Central Statisti- The abrupt end of the cooperation has proved cal Offices, Russian Regional Customs, Border the fragility of elaborated agreements. Guard, and Customs Chamber.

The objective and the Local border traffic on the external methodology of the research borders of the European Union The main objective of this article is to offer Visa-free agreements, having a long historical an answer to the question whether introducing tradition, are bilateral agreements increas- local border traffic on the external frontiers ing permeability of borders and making lives of the EU is an effective tool for cross-border of borderland inhabitants much easier. Such integration and development of marginalised agreements that were concluded soon after border areas. The article presents how the the First World War concerned subsequent Polish-Russian borderland was functioning af- boundaries and solved the problem of com- ter the local border traffic agreement had en- muters – mainly people who owned arable tered into force. The conducted analysis indi- land on the other side of a border (for in- cates that local border traffic is a tool that the stance, such agreements were concluded be- European Union and/or state authorities fail tween Hungary and Yugoslavia, Poland and to take advantage of, and which introduction Czechoslovakia, Norway and Finland). In the would introduce a series of benefits exceeding 1990s there were three local border traffic the basic premises of the EU regulations. agreements concluded between Poland and: To assess the impact of the LBT zone, and Germany (entered into force in 1993), the to gather opinions regarding the subject, the Czech Republic (1995) and Slovakia (1997). authors carried out a number of interviews They introduced passport-free traffic and and surveys on both sides of the Polish-Russian people who took part in it were inhabitants border. During the study, 45 expert interviews of border regions, registered tourists and, were conducted in Polish border area included in the case of Germany, almost all citizens

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 98 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka

(Komornicki 1999). According to Komornicki into force, seven local border traffic agree- (1999), this 1990s local border traffic was the ments were signed (Tab. 1). Two visa-free first step to future introduction of passport- traffic agreements were introduced on Polish free traffic like the one existing in the Euro- borders. The agreement between Poland and pean Union at present. Ukraine was signed on the 1st of July 2009, The enlargement of the European Com- while the agreement with Russia was signed munity complicated the relations and con- on the 27th of July 2012. Local border traffic tacts of the states separated by the external is deemed to be the most effective instrument frontier of the EU. To prevent further isolation, of visa liberalisation, which boosts the dynam- the European Parliament and Council issued ics of traffic with only minor negative effects a regulation (No.1931/2006) laying down pro- (Jaroszewicz 2012). Additionally, it is consid- visions for local border traffic on the external ered to be an important impulse for the de- frontiers of Member States. Rules referring di- velopment of border areas. rectly to visa-free traffic in border areas were Thanks to numerous facilitations, the visa- included in the Regulation of the European free traffic contributes to more frequent and Parliament and Council No. 1931/2006 of the regular crossings of the border. Additionally, 20th December 2006. introducing special border crossing points Local border traffic is defined by the EU and traffic lanes increased the infrastruc- as regular crossings of the external land bor- tural permeability of the boundary. Based der of the European Community by residents on the Second report on the implementation of border areas with the intention of staying and functioning of the LBT regime, presented within the border area of the neighbouring by the European Commission to the Parlia- country for social, cultural, family, or justified ment and the European Council, a conclu- economic reasons (excluding commercial ac- sion was drawn that the LBT permits were tivities) for a period not exceeding 3 months1. highly popular among the residents of border A border area is defined as an area locat- areas. The information gathered by the Eu- ed not further than 30 kilometres from the ropean Commission for the purpose of the frontier (50 km in exceptional cases). The Second report… indicates that the holders residents, living in the areas included into of the LBT cards cross the borders regularly. the visa-free traffic area for not less than 1, This confirms the positive impact of the LBT year may freely cross the border and are ex- on cross-border exchange and cooperation, empted from the visa obligation (Regulation as well as on relations between the residents No. 1931/2006). Since the Regulation’s entry of the borderland.

Table 1. Visa-free traffic agreements on the external borders of the European Union

No. Countries Day of the entry into force

1 Hungary – Ukraine January 2008 2 Slovakia – Ukraine September 2008 3 Poland – Ukraine July 2009 4 Romania – Moldova October 2010 5 Belarus – Latvia February 2012 6 Norway – Russian Federation May 2012 7 Poland – Russian Federation July 2012

Source: Based on Jaroszewicz (2012) and Umowy … (2012).

1 Total duration of stay cannot exceed 90 days within a six months’ period, counted from the day of first entry.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 99

The provisions regarding the local border During the first years after the disintegra- traffic can significantly facilitate the life of citi- tion of the Soviet Union two opposite processes zens of the EU living in the vicinity of Commu- were going on: re-bordering on the Lithuanian- nity’s external borders. Visa-free traffic agree- Russian border, which used to be a transpar- ment is an important instrument that mitigates ent boundary between two Soviet republics, the impact of visa regime and increases cross- and de-bordering at the Russian-Polish border, border traffic (Doliwa-Klepacka 2011). A de- which was being opened. At the regional level, tailed analysis of introduction and functioning they were actively establishing legal and in- of local border traffic on the Polish-Russian stitutional infrastructure and developing prac- border offers an opportunity to better under- tice of cross-border cooperation (Palmowski stand LBT’s influence on the functioning of the 2010; Rožkov-Jur’evskij 2014). frontier, on the inhabitants of the border areas, The growth of permeability of the border and on the nature of neighbourly relations. was related to i.a. development of infrastructure comprising currently seven border The transformation of the crossings, which include four road crossings Polish-Russian border (Grzechotki-Mamonovo II, Gronowo-Mamono- vo, Bezledy-Bagrationovsk, Gołdap-Gusev) and The process of re-bordering between Russia three railway crossing points (Braniewo-Ma- and Poland can be divided into two stages. monovo, Głomno-Bagrationovsk, Skandawa- In 1945-1989, the USSR and Poland delimited Zheleznodorozhny). For the last time, the and demarcated a new Soviet-Polish border infrastructure was extended in 2010, when established by the treaty of 16 August 1945 the Grzechotki-Mamonovo II crossing point (Eberhardt 2012). Later, in 1985, the sides opened, connecting Tri-City with Kaliningrad. signed the agreement on maritime bounda- Since 2010 the mean distance between border ries. Though before 1989 Poland was an ally crossing points is ca. 33 km (Tab. 2), which ac- of the Soviet Union, the boundary between cording to Moraczewska (2008), is a sufficient them was closed for free circulation. density, given the short length of the border The collapse of the Soviet Union has radi- and its ‘regional’ nature (i.e. majority of the cally changed the geopolitical situation of Ka- crossing points is used by local and regional liningrad. The region has become an exclave traffic). of Russian Federation separated from its main In 1991-2003, inhabitants of Kaliningrad territory by Lithuania and Belarus. When profited of visa-free regime with neighbour- Lithuania and Poland became member states ing countries (Komornicki 2010). Since 2000, of the EU and NATO, the situation has become representatives of the region have been in- even more complicated. The problems typical volved in the dialogue between Russia and for all exclaves and related with international the EU concerning the regime. Negotiations transit, economic competitiveness, etc have about mainland Russia’s communications become more disruptive. with its exclave were particularly difficult.

Table 2. Development of the number of crossing points on the Polish-Russian border in the years 1993- 2015

Total length Total number Average distance of the border (km) of crossing points between crossing points

232 1993 4 58 1995 6 38.66 2010 7 33.14

Source: Based on Moraczewska (2008), Palmowski (2013).

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 100 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka

The European side consecutively declined all Gronowo-Mamonovo crossing point daily. Russian proposals and refused to take into ac- In 2008 their number dropped to 1,500-2,000. count any Russia’s arguments about the spe- The total traffic decreased from almost 3 mil- cific situation of the region and to conclude lion in 2007 to less than 1.3 million in 2009 special agreements. Leaders of the European (Fig. 1). So, integration of Poland and Lithuania Commission referred to the inviolability and to the EU led to new customs and border bar- versatility standards established by the Schen- riers for both ordinary people and economic gen Agreement, and strong support for the actors. national sovereignty of Poland and Lithuania, which excludes any possibility of the adop- 4,5 tion of the Russian proposals for the transit 4 through their territory. Since July 2003 Lithu- 3,5 ania and since October 2003 Poland have 3 begun to apply the Schengen regime in com- 2,5 munication with Russia. Poland tried to post- 2 1,5 pone this date as late as possible. For travel- 1 ling to Poland and Lithuania between 2003 0,5

crossings of the border in millions and 2007 they had to have an international 0 passport and a visa, but the visa regime was 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 simplified, and it was possible to get a multi- Figure 1. Number of crossings of Polish-Russian entry visa valid for a year without invitation border in the years 2002-2009 and for free (Anisiewicz & Palmowski 2014). Source: Based on Border Guard (Straż Graniczna) In 2003 the Lithuanian authorities introduced statistics, 2016. a special transit document (it means that tick- ets must be purchased more than 24 hours Since the very beginning the discourse before the departure) for passengers travel- about the exclave was devoted to the contra- ling by train to Russia and back. Since 2005 diction between the need to establish com- the transit passengers also need to have an in- mon legal norms for all Russian territories ternational passport. Moreover, some issues and for the EU countries, on the one hand, regarding transit via Lithuania still wait for and the need to take into account uniqueness decisions. In 2007 Polish authorities adopted of the Kaliningrad case, on the other. In order the Schengen norms and requested from Rus- to compensate such high economic and social sian citizens a visa issued only on the basis costs of transit, Kaliningrad regional authori- of the invitation letter. ties tried to obtain additional funds, privileges The long-awaited Russia-EU agreement and especially a special status. The propos- on the facilitation of the visa regime, which als varied from the establishment of a free came into effect on June 1, 2007, resulted economic zone to a broad autonomy from in a stricter visa regime for the residents of the the federal centre with a further full or par- region. Instead of a free one-year visa for trav- tial integration to the EU. Radical voices were el to Poland and Lithuania, the residents had rather marginal but they did not contribute to obtain a one-entry visa paying a 35-euro to a favourable attitude of Moscow to claims fee. A tighter visa regime and the application of a special customs’ and fiscal regime. Fears of common EU rules to the traffic of physical to lose control over Kaliningrad and apprehen- persons across the eastern EU borders pro- sions of a total restructuring of the Baltic re- voked its decrease and gave rise to difficul- gion’s geopolitical map prevailed. ties for a part of local population, which lived On its side, the EU refused to consider on small cross-border trade (Palmowski 2010). Russian arguments about a specific situation Before Poland’s accession to the Schen- of the exclave. The visa regime was in general gen area, 2,500 to 5,000 persons passed the main theme of the debate on Kaliningrad.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 101

The gradual tightening of the border regime socio-economic development of the region, the was perceived as the main obstacle to cross- increasing of its population’s level of life which border cooperation and integration of the re- should be comparable with the neighbouring gion into the European space. A constant mo- EU countries. The implementation of this task tive was to blame the EU in applying double is impossible without an active participation standards: simplifying or even abolishing visas in the processes of economic regionalization for many countries the EU declined Russian re- on the Baltic. quests of the visa free regime. Sometimes the obstinacy of Brussels was opposed to the in- The local border traffic in the terest of Polish and Lithuanian border regions Polish-Russian borderland in better communication with Kaliningrad. At the same time, great attention was Polish and Lithuanian governments have be- paid to searching for compromise solutions gun to discuss the possibility of the simplifica- in bilateral relations between Russia and the tion of the visa regime with Kaliningrad region EU. Thanks to a number of research projects (Anisiewicz & Palmowski 2014). But the obser- supported by the EU and carried out jointly vation of common technical requirements by experts from Russia and European coun- could divide population of Kaliningrad region tries at the beginning of the 2000s, the idea into three categories: those who can visit ei- to transform Kaliningrad region into a ‘pilot ther Poland or Lithuania (in the framework region’ of economic cooperation between of LBT) or none of these countries. Residents Russia and the united Europe was largely dis- living in the municipalities situated beyond the cussed. The discussion coincided with the crea- 30-50 kilometres range from the border, that tion of euroregions, the simplification of the is established by the regulations, couldn’t use visa regime2, the development of cross-border this procedure. and inter-regional contacts in various fields In April 2010 Russia’s and Poland’s Minis- and of multilateral cooperation within the en- ters of Foreign Affairs S. Lavrov and R. Sikorski tire Baltic region. suggested the European Commission extend- Despite of controversial voices, a general ing special conditions of cross-border travels conclusion was that an optimal strategy would to all residents of Kaliningrad region (Anisie- be in reaching a balance between the tasks wicz & Palmowski 2014). Radosław Sikorski of keeping Kaliningrad within the economic, stated: “We will do everything to persuade legal, cultural and political space of Russian the EU to change the instructions. If that Federation and the region’s openness. Moreo- fails, then we are prepared to take the risk ver, one is impossible without another (Fedorov of reaching such agreement even if some peo- 2010; Fedorov et al. 2013). The Concept of the ple in Brussels don’t like it. Poland and Russia Federal Socio-Economic Policy Toward Kalin- showed Europe our joint position” (Visa privi- ingrad Region adopted in 2001 stated that leges… 2010). “The main objective to realize national inter- The European Commission agreed to make ests and security in Kaliningrad region is the an exception: the LBT area was delimited not creation of the economic, international, po- within the distance of 30 or 50 km from the litical and military-strategic conditions which boundary but the entire Kaliningrad region would exclude the weakening of its role and and parts of two voivodeships in Poland, importance as an integral part of Russian Fed- Warmińsko-Mazurskie3 and Pomorskie4 were eration”. Then the authors of the document declare that these conditions comprise stable 3 Including the cities of Elbląg and Olsztyn and the counties of Elbląski, Braniewski, Lidzbarski, Bartoszycki, Olsztyński, Kętrzyński, Mrągowski, Węgorzewski, Giżyc- 2 Since 2010, Polish authorities simplified the ac- ki, Gołdapski, and Olecki. cess of Russians citizens to Polish neighboring regions 4 Including Gdańsk, Gdynia and Sopot and the in issuing more long-term multi-entry visas. counties of Gdański, Nowodworski and Malborski.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 102 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka included (Fig. 2). This solution was considered lived in the area covered by the agreement for as a noticeable achievement of the Polish and not less than 3 years. The inhabitants of the Russian politicians. The population of the area Polish-Russian borderland could freely cross covered by the LBT regime makes up about the border initially holding 2 year, and later 2.8 million people in all, including 941,500 5 years permits for visa-free traffic, for a fee Russian and 1,900,000 Polish citizens. The lower than that of a Schengen visa, i.e. costing agreement between two countries was signed EUR 20. on December 14, 2011 and came into force Signing the agreement on the local border on July 27, 2012. traffic was one of the more significant events Unlike Poland, Lithuania was not prepared in recent history of EU-Russian and Polish- to extend the LBT regime to the whole Kalinin- Russian relations. The introduction of a visa- grad region. Lithuanian politicians appealed free zone on Polish-Russian border was a sui to the regulations of the EU and were afraid generis experiment of modifying the visa re- of failing safety requirements, smuggling, and gime in regards to the Russian Federation. damage to the local economy (Lithuanian For- Agreement’s entry into force not only brought eign Minister… 2010). As a result, the agree- numerous benefits to the residents, entrepre- ment with Lithuania was not signed, though neurs, as well as local and regional authori- residents of Lithuanian border regions, espe- ties of the borderland, but also changed the cially businesspersons and other local stake- relations on national and transnational levels. holders supported the establishment of the The introduction of visa-free traffic and more LBT regime (Lithuania has frozen talks… 2014). frequent neighbourly contacts stimulated In accordance with the 2012 agreement cross-border cooperation of the countries. between the Republic of Poland and the Rus- The conclusion of the agreement constituted sian Federation, local border traffic on Polish- another step in the EU-Russian relations. The Russian border made multiple crossing of the pilot nature of Kaliningrad Oblast, in the con- frontier possible for residents of the zone, who text of the EU-Russian relations, converted

Figure 2. The local border traffic zone at the Polish-Russian borderland Source: Domaniewski and Studzińska (2016).

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 103 the Polish-Russian borderland into an interna- 100% 90% tional affair, thus making this region a very 80% interesting research area. 70% On the 1st of July 2016 Polish Ministry 60% of Foreign Affairs shut down the local border 50% 40% traffic with Kaliningrad Oblast and Ukraine, 30% on the grounds of security concerns related 20% to the NATO summit and the World Youth 10% 0% Days organised in Poland at that time. In re- 2012 2013 2014 2015 sponse to this decision on the 2nd of July the LBT crossings visa crossings Russian authorities also suspended the agree- Figure 3. The number of Russians crossing the ment on visa-free traffic. Ukraine did not take Polish-Russian border within the local border traf- similar steps. After the international events fic and visa-free regimes in the years 2012-2015 in Poland had ended, the LBT on the Ukrainian Source: Based on Border Guard (Straż Graniczna) border was re-established. However, it was still statistics, 2016. suspended on the Russian border. The official communication of Polish authorities informed that concerns related to the safety of the bor- 7 der were still justified. In spite of protests and 6 efforts of some Polish regional leaders from 5 the LBT area, the traffic has not been re-established until today. 4 3

The effect of introduction crossings in millions 2 of local border traffic on the 1 Polish-Russian border 0 The LBT created an opportunity for develop- 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ing a new form of cooperation between the Russians Poles neighbouring regions. First of all, it increased Figure 4. The number of crossings of Polish-Rus- permeability of the border. According to the sian border in the years 2012-2015. data collected by the Polish Border Guards Source: Based on Border Guard (Straż Graniczna) (2016), about 50% of Kaliningraders come statistics, 2016. to Poland in years 2013-2014 using the LBT cards (Fig. 3). From July 2012 to July 2014, the 900 consulate of Poland in Kaliningrad issued more 800 than 200 thousand cards. The data of the Rus- 700 sian regional customs shows that the number 600 of persons and cars crossing the Polish border 500 increased by the ratio of 4 in 2013 as com- 400 pared with 2010 and even exceeded the flow 300 during the visa free period. In 2013, 6 million 200 crossings were registered (Fig. 4). expenditures in PLN millions 100 The introduction of local border traf- 0 fic, which resulted in mass daily crossings, 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 changed the permeability of the border in the Figure 5. Russians’ expenditures in Poland in the infrastructural dimension. Increased traffic years 2010-2014 forced modifications of border infrastruc- Source: Based on Border Guard (Straż Granic- ture. The permeability of the Polish-Russian zna) statistics, 2011-2015.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 104 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka border was improved through e.g.: introduc- for such a situation is the exclave status and tion of special traffic lanes for people crossing the cost of transit to Kaliningrad, as well as the the border within the LBT regime, automated institutional structure of retail trade. printing of migration cards for people entering According to the Central Statistical Office, Kaliningrad Oblast, digital notifications on ar- 59.1% of Russians crossing the border in 2013 rival of organised groups at road crossing visited Poland to do shopping while 16% came points (e-booking) (Dudzińska, Dyner 2013). as tourists. The Office’s statistics revealed also Though the formal reason for obtaining the that in 2013 the Russians spent PLN 583.9M, LBT card were cross-border family ties, as well mainly within the area covered by the local as different social, cultural, and economic con- border traffic. According to the Polish customs’ nections, it was evident that the main benefi- data, in 2014 only the residents of Kaliningrad ciaries of the LBT were cross-border traders. region spent in shops, restaurants and hotels Kaliningraders were buying food and toiletry in Poland at least 10-11 billion rubles (44% while Poles were crossing the border to buy more than in 2013). What is more, the pay- fuel. According to the Central Statistical Of- ment documents submitted for tax-free collec- fice’s data in 2013 92.1% of Poles crossed the tion showed that during the first six months border for shopping purposes, thus increas- of 2014 they bought goods and services in Po- ing greatly the expenditures of Polish citizens land for about 92 million zloty, or 22 million in Kaliningrad Oblast. In 2012 Poles’ expendi- euro. It is nearly two times more than for the tures in the exclave grew by 147% compared same period of 2013. Clearly, the real sum to previous year. Furthermore, in 2013 the val- is much higher (Russian West 2014). Charac- ue of expenditures grew by 232% compared teristically, shopping is yielding its positions to previous year. According to the Polish ex- to other types of tourism: healthcare, enter- perts’ assessments, about 75% of Poles enter- tainment, visit of different events, etc. ing the region of Kaliningrad as participants The presented data confirm a positive and of the LBT, went only to the nearest petrol sta- stimulating impact of the LBT on local econo- tion and spent in Russia no more than one mies on both sides of the border. The differ- or two hours. In 2012, Polish ‘tanker’ traders ence in availability of products and goods brought 160M litres of fuel from Russia. Mass combined with ease of crossing boosted the purchases of fuel in Russia have contributed economic development of an otherwise mar- to the decrease of number of petrol stations ginalised borderland. As the number of cross- in Polish border area. Data provided by the ings grew, new retail and service facilities, Polish Statistical Office indicate that in 2012 dedicated to the clients from abroad were there were 340 stations in Warmińsko- opening. A Biedronka discount store built Mazurskie Voivodeship. In 2014 this figure in the immediate vicinity of the crossing point dropped to 266. in Gołdap or shopping centres in Braniewo All in all, ordinary citizens going shopping and Bartoszyce serve as examples. The study at weekends and holidays, and spending free by Central Statistical Office confirms that time gradually substituted ‘shuttle’ traders. in 2015, in the areas of Warmińsko-Mazurskie A relatively high per capita private car owner- Voivodeship covered by the LBT agreement, ship rate in Kaliningrad (330 autos per thou- there were more stores operating then before sand inhabitants) makes it possible to visit Pol- the introduction of the visa-free agreement ish border regions very often. The lowest food (Fig. 6). The growth was particularly dynamic prices across the European Union (61% of the in the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship’s EU average) and a high quality of Polish goods counties (powiat) with a lower saturation attracted Russians (The lowest food prices… of commercial network. 2015). In 2012, the average cost of the con- The counter-sanctions against the EU and sumer basket in Gdansk was approximately other Western countries adopted by Russia 20-23% less than in Kaliningrad. The reason as a reaction to the measures taken as a result

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 105

number of stores 20

olecki

giżycki

elbląski

lidzbarski

olsztyński

gołdapski

kętrzyński

braniewski

mrągowski

bartoszycki

węgorzewski

city of Elbląg

city of Olsztyn

2010 2015 Figure 6. Stores in counties of the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship covered by the local border traffic agreement in the years 2010-2015 Source: Based on BDL (Local Data Bank), 2016. of the Ukrainian crisis and the ban of foodstuff first weeks after the depreciation Poles were import led first to the increase of the ‘grey’ im- actively buying on the Russian side not only port by Russian individual tourists from Poland foodstuff, but also electronics (Russian food to Kaliningrad. Before the embargo the re- 2015). Polish Ministry of Agriculture estimat- gion was 70% dependent on imports of dairy ed the rise of Russian foodstuff’s export to Po- products, 50% - on the supply of fruit and land in 2014 in 78.9% as compared with 2013 vegetables and 40% - on imports of poultry (in monetary terms, it reached 160.6 million meat from the EU. Soon after the introduction euros). of counter-sanctions, prices of some products With the stabilization of ruble in spring have increased by 1.5-2 times. Cross-border 2015, the intensity of trips began slowly recov- shuttle traders have firstly benefited from ering. Residents of Kaliningrad started to visit these decisions: they can bring up to 5 kg neighbouring Polish towns again for shopping of products that fall under counter-sanctions and spending their free time. Individual shop- for private consumption. These goods were ping and one-day recreational trips without accumulated by large commercial structures. lodging became more popular. According Such shuttle trade and smuggling helped to the Customs Chamber in Olsztyn in the first to soften the situation in the retail markets five months of 2016 the number of crossings of the Kaliningrad region (Russia after the em- fell by only 8% as compared with the same bargo… 2015). period of 2014. From month to month of the However, after a sharp ruble depreciation first half of 2016 the number of Russians visit- in October 2014, shuttle trade from the EU ing Poland was increasing. According to some ceased to be profitable. As a result, in Janu- experts, Russians did not stop buying goods ary 2015 border crossings felt down by 41% in Poland thanks to their very positive opinion as compared with the same period of the about Polish products (Polska wciąż… 2015). previous year. At the same time, the number The LBT regime was established in some of shop-tourists from the Baltic States and other areas of the eastern EU borders (Latvia Poland who were actively buying cheaper - Russia, Belarus - Latvia, Hungary - Ukraine, Russian goods intensively increased. On the Slovakia - Ukraine, etc.) but nowhere such

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 106 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka spectacular results were achieved. The key or positive to Poles (Attitude of Kaliningrad- to a success was the inclusion of large cities ers… 2014). Survey of the All-Russian Public (Kaliningrad, Gdansk, Sopot, Gdynia and Olsz- Opinion Research Centre (VTsIOM) showed tyn) that provide a high level of services. The that 51% of Kaliningraders perceive Russian- difference in prices belonged to the driving Polish relations positively (Report 2015).. force of everyday cross-border interactions. At the same time, according to the survey Ordinary citizens benefited from the estab- of the Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and lishment of the LBT, which gave them access Understanding 55% of Polish citizens polled to cheaper goods. The LBT undoubtedly gave in the area covered by the LBT regime have the opportunity to build closer neighbour rela- positive emotions associated with Russians5. tionships. It has have a strong impact on en- The vast majority of Polish participants of the trepreneurs, businessmen, journalists, intellec- survey conducted by the authors in the coun- tuals, and officials from Kaliningrad, as well ties covered by visa-free traffic considered as those from Tri-City and Olsztyn. The people the relations with Kaliningrad Oblast good have become interested in domestic issues (48.8%) and 19.2% thought they were very and life in Poland. This has created a common good. Slightly more than 30% of Polish inter- information space and interest in each other, viewees perceived neighbourly relations with has increased trust and communication be- Russia as neutral. Only 1.6% described the tween neighbours. relations as bad. Direct contacts allowed to confront mutual The inhabitants of the borderland meet stereotypes and prejudices with the reality. in stores and restaurants but do not interact; The local experts suggested that the LBT re- they function ‘in parallel to each other’ (Wen- gime could have created a common trans-bor- erski & Kaźmierkiewicz 2013). Place of resi- der space. They believed that despite of the dence and work, the frequency of contact significant worsening of Russian-Polish rela- with the Russians, education, and age impact tions, residents of neighbouring areas would the perceptions of the neighbours. Historical have kept their contacts and continued to feel relations of Poles and Russians impede full in- comfortable on both sides of the border. For tegration, however more frequent contacts re- many residents of Kaliningrad Oblast the Pol- duce tensions between the inhabitants of the ish neighbouring regions represent the EU borderland and diminish the impact of media territory that is treated as a reference point. and national government on daily neighbourly They live in Russian Federation, in the Russian relations. A taxi driver from Gdansk declared economic and legal space, but also partly in an interview to polish sociologists: “Between in another dimension. It is a source of a new Poles and Russians, there are no discords. Con- Kaliningrad identity. This borderland may flicts are at a higher level”. An employee of the be perceived as a kind of a laboratory where Museum of Amber in Gdansk seconded him: future models and forms of interstate coopera- “I often meet Russians, they are open, nice, tion might be tested and implemented. not noisy, and they have the same tempera- For Russia as a whole Poland seems ment as Poles. I perceive them well”. A survey to be one of the least friendly countries (Rus- conducted by the authors among the residents sian-Polish relations 2015). According to re- of Tri-City seems to confirm the statements cent polls of the Levada Centre, in the eyes presented above. Over 81% of respondents of Russian citizens Poles run the 5th in the list from Tri-City declared they did not mind the of peoples who are hostile to Russia following presence of Russian tourists in the city space, Ukrainians, Georgians, Americans and Brit- ish. But the attitude of Kaliningraders to Poles 5 Survey was conducted in August 2013 in the form and Poland has not changed since the estab- of computer-aided telephone interviews on a sample of 1,000 adult Poles (the sample was drawn randomly) lishment of the EU sanctions against Russia. and represents population by gender, age, education, 60% of the region’s inhabitants are neutral town size, and district.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 107

Only as little as 6.4% of the interviewees as- remains a dangerous and grey city, it is poor, serted that the Russians were not welcomed not groomed and interesting, and at the same in the agglomeration, while 12.4% did not give time too expensive (Kolosov & Vendina 2014). any opinion regarding the residents of Kalin- The LBT didn’t yet change these stereotypes. ingrad Oblast in Tri-City. The respondents According to the survey conducted in August dissatisfied with Russian presence, referred 2013, 73% of surveyed inhabitants of neigh- to dangerous driving, queues in stores, im- bouring Polish regions have never been to Ka- proper attitude towards the locals (according liningrad region. However, those who have to these interviewees, the Russians were impo- recently visited Kaliningrad emphasized its lite and ill-tempered), as well as road conges- dynamism and positive change. No doubt that tion and accidents. negative stereotypes persist partly because The impact of local border traffic agree- by an inadequate promotion and marketing ment on the functioning of local communi- of the region by Russian stakeholders. ties is reflected also in the growth of interest Cooperation with Kaliningrad Oblast be- in learning Russian language in Polish parts came an important element of regional and of the borderland. The attempts to understand local authorities’ polices of both Polish regions. the neighbour come as a consequence of ef- The location of Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivode- forts to increase the incomes from services ship in the immediate vicinity of Kaliningrad provided to the Russians, and should be inter- Oblast makes collaboration with the Russians preted as another benefit of introducing visa- natural. The Voivodeship’s strategy for socio- free traffic on the external frontiers of the EU. economic development until 2025 lists such Although the motivation for learning neigh- cooperation as an important developmental bour’s tongue is often purely economic, it will factor; the document points to the possibility contribute in the future to better mutual of benefiting from the opportunities offered understanding and gradual establishment by local border traffic. The strategy for devel- of contacts. Language barrier constitutes opment of Pomorskie Voivodeship until 2020 a major problem in border regions, hence stresses the importance of cooperation within overcoming it is crucial for borderland inhab- the Baltic region, which includes Kaliningrad itants’ full integration. Oblast. Nevertheless, some Russian experts sug- The significance of cross-border coopera- gest that the LBT regime changed nothing tion is also reflected in the activities of coun- because the consulate of Poland had been ties and municipalities. Particularly notable issuing annual multi-entry Schengen visas was the activity of counties of the Warmińsko- relatively easy. They believe that this regime Mazurskie Voivodeship. Out of eleven district is not beneficial for the economy of Kalinin- authority offices (starostwa) that signed bi- grad, especially for consumer market, be- lateral agreements, nine were located in the cause the LBT has caused a dramatic increase Warmia and Mazuria regions. All the frontier in ‘grey’ imports from Poland. Local business counties carry out active cooperation with feels the increasing competitive pressure the Russian side. The farther away from the from Polish producers and retail trade. Kalin- boundary, the lower the number of self-gov- ingrad manufacturing companies and retail- ernments cooperating across the border (Stan ers claim that federal and regional structure demokracji lokalnej… 2012). Additionally, adopt protectionist measures. Expectations particularly active were the urban counties: of the increasing flow of Polish tourists were Gdańsk, Gdynia, Olsztyn, Elbląg (Tab. 3). not justified. According to M. Więckowski It is worth noting that after the introduc- (2010: 109) “For Poles, trips to the countries tion of local border traffic regulations, the of the former Soviet Union are decidedly less partnership agreements that had been attractive. Their trips are mainly undertaken signed several years before were renewed. for trade purposes”. In their eyes, Kaliningrad In 2012 Elbląg and in 2013 Gdańsk decided

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 108 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka

Table 3. Bilateral agreements of Polish counties included in the local border traffic agreement

Year of signature Year of prolongation No. County (powiat) Partner of the agreement of the agreement

1Gdańsk Kaliningrad 1993 renewed in 2013 2 Gdynia Kaliningrad 1994 renewed in 1997 3 Olsztyn Kaliningrad 1993 renewed in 1998, 2003, 2008 4ElblągBaltiysk1994 Kaliningrad 1994 renewed in 2012 5 Bartoszyce County Bagrationovsk district 2001 - 6Giżycko County Nesterov 2006 - 7Gołdap County Gusev district 2010 - 8Kętrzyn County Pravdinsk district 2004 - Kaliningrad 2009 - 9 Lidzbark County Bagrationovsk district 2000 - 10 Olecko County Guryevsk County 2004 - 11 Węgorzewo County Chernyakhovsk district 2003 - Ozyorsk 2003 - Pravdinsk 2005 -

Source: Based on diffuse sources to re-launch cooperation with the city of Kalin- Additionally meetings and protests with the ingrad to boost the socio-economic benefits. participation of politicians, local authorities, As Gdańsk authorities informed, the agree- and residents are organised. Self-government was a result of permanent cooperation ments’ efforts enjoy the support of MPs from of the two cities, first established within the both the governing coalition (Kukiz’15) and town-twinning framework in 1993. Indeed, the from the opposition (Platforma Obywatelska, contacts became much more dynamic with .Nowoczesna), who also demand the decision the opening of local border traffic on the 27th to be changed. The government, however, jus- of July 2012 (Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej… tifies shutting down the LBT with security rea- 2016). sons and as the article was being published, The significance of the LBT for local and it has not changed its position. regional economy is also reflected in vig- orous efforts of regional self-governments Conclusion aimed at re-establishing the zone after its shut down in 2016. The marshal of Pomorskie Polish-Russian borderland is an intriguing re- Voivodeship issued letters to the minister for search area not only due to its high sensitiv- the interior and administration and to the ity to historical, social, and economic factors, minister of foreign affairs, while the marshal but also because of its geopolitical nature. of Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship sent On the one hand, the Polish-Russian border a letter to the head of Ministry of Foreign is considered a local boundary, as it is crossed Affairs to re-establish LBT on Polish-Russian primarily by the inhabitants of the borderland, border. on the other hand – it reflects the bilateral Pol- Also local self-governments have taken ac- ish-Russian relations and EU policies towards tions. Kętrzyn City Council issued a plea to the its neighbouring countries. Ministry of Foreign Affairs to alter the decision In their traditional understanding the concerning the suspension of visa-free traffic. LBT zones had mainly humanitarian and

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 109 compensating purposes. Their aim was not the context of the administrative boundaries to create cross-border regions, but to facilitate of the counties (cf. Walsh 2015). However, crossings of the boundary for societies divid- this was not the case while building a com- ed by state boundaries. Hence the regulations mon area of cooperation between Kaliningrad that establish the range limit of 30/50 km are Oblast and the Warmińsko-Mazurskie and usually an obstacle in realisation of zones’ Pomorskie Voivodeships. On the contrary – actual function, i.e. integrating, and not the commitment and the role of the regional merely compensating the nuisances stem- authorities in the processes of the LBT zone ming from the partitions. The success of the creation and its functioning exemplified the four-year period of the LBT zone’s function- efficiency of united grass-roots efforts. Thus, ing on the Polish-Kaliningrad border came the region had the chance to become a mod- as a result of modification of those regula- el of national and local policies’ cooperation tions and the inclusion of economic regions in border areas. The decision of Polish authori- otherwise heavily affected in the functional ties to shut down the LBT has verified these dimension. The example of the Polish-Russian expectations. It has proved yet again that borderland, where the visa-free traffic zone socio-economic initiatives in border regions was significantly extended, corroborates the are deterministically dependent on the deci- importance of including large urban centres, sions of central governments. The fact that academic cities, and areas that attract tour- the interviewees of the survey pointed most ism. The concessions made by the EU in this frequently to the unpredictability of the deci- case were justified as an attempt to prevent sions of Russian central government, whose artificial division of Kaliningrad region (Sec- policies dynamically change, as the main ob- ond report on the implementation and func- stacle in the development of the LBT, perfectly tioning of the local border traffic regime, illustrates how unstable and difficult to predict 2011). Nonetheless, the benefits from extend- in long term are the circumstances in which ing the zone have far exceeded the adopted such initiatives operate – even those as suc- assumptions and have substantially contrib- cessful as the LBT. None of the respondents uted to cross-border integration. Having this considered a possibility that the Polish authori- experience in mind, it should be noted that ties could definitively change their stance. to exploit the integration opportunities of LBT, The case of success of an otherwise failed its range needs to be adjusted individually experiment of LBT on the Polish-Kaliningrad to each area, with special attention dedicated Oblast border offers analytically interesting to adapting it to existing settlement pattern, material for describing processes of periph- and in particular to the presence of higher- eralisation of areas. As the analysis of ‘life’ tier urban centres. and ‘death’ of the local border traffic zone The residents of areas covered by the indicates, the peripheralisation of areas does LBT used the benefit of location for building not necessarily stem from their endogenous an interdependent borderland. The intensity characteristics. Exterior factors may play of traffic and the nature of cross-border con- a key role, not only limiting the endogenously tacts allow to state that during the four years generated potential but actually, in a longer of functioning of the zone, socially created perspective, causing its demise. Lack of confi- cross-border soft space was indeed formed. dence in the stability of prevailing regulations Emergence of such areas is extremely is the fundamental obstacle that prevents the important in building cooperation and good- development of regional socio-economic ac- neighbourly relations, not only in a post-con- tivities. Restoring lost confidence is a lengthy flict political situation, but also for ameliora- process, while the residents’ and entrepre- tion of conflicts. What often becomes a barrier neurs’ inactivity – a consequence of los- in building cross-border spaces of cooperation ing trust – contributes, in turn, to region’s is the parish politics of interests framed within peripheralisation.

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 110 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka

In the context of complicated relations be- Acknowledgements tween Russia and the EU, and Poland in par- Vladimir Kolosov, Maria Zotova and Alexander ticular, it is difficult to overestimate the posi- Sebentsov thank Russian Science Foundation tive role that the LBT played in amelioration for supporting the project “Russian Borders: of conflicts. The borderland with the LBT could Challenges of Neighbourhood” (grant No. potentially become a ‘model region of cross- 14-18-03621) which allowed them conducting border cooperation’ or a ‘laboratory of social the Russian part of the study. changes’ between Russia and the EU countries; an objective proposed by some experts Editors’ note: in the early 2000s could have had a chance Unless otherwise stated, the sources of tables and to be implemented. Unfortunately, yet this figures are the authors’, on the basis of their own time, it did not happen so. research.

References DUDZIŃSKA K., DYNER A., 2013. Mały ruch graniczny między obwodem kaliningradzkim a Polską ALLMENDINGER P., HAUGHTON G., KNIELING J., OTH- – wyzwania, szanse i zagrożenia. Policy Paper, ENGRAFEN F., 2015. Soft spaces in Europe: Re-ne- no. 29 (77), Warszawa: PISM. gotiating governance, boundaries and borders. EBERHARDT P., 2012. The Curzon line as the eastern London: Routledge. boundary of Poland: The origins and the political ANISIEWICZ R., PALMOWSKI T., 2014. Small border background. Geographia Polonica, vol. 85, no. 1, traffic and cross-border tourism between Po- pp.5-21. land and the Kaliningrad Oblast of the Russian FEDOROV G.M., ZVEREV JU.M., KORNEEVEC V.S., Federation. Quaestiones Geographicae, vol. 33, 2013. Rossija na Baltike: 1990-2012. Kaliningrad: no. 2, pp. 79-86. Izd-vo BFU im. I. Kanta. ATTITUDE OF KALININGRADERS TO POLES, 2014. Ot- FEDOROV G., 2010. The Kaliningrad dilemma: noshenie kaliningradtsev k poliakam i naoborot. A ‘development corridor’ or a ‘double periph- http://polsha24.com/novosti/otnoshenie-kalinin- ery’? The geopolitical factor of the development gradtsev-k-poliakam-i-naoborot-5412/ [10 June of the Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea. Baltic 2016]. Region, no. 2, pp. 4-12. BDL, 2016. Bank Danych Lokalnych, stat.gov.pl/bdl/ FOMINA J., 2012. Umowa o małym ruchu granicz- [15 November 2016]. nym z obwodem kaliningradzkim: Sukces polskiej BIULETYN INFORMACJI PUBLICZNEJ MIASTA GDAŃSK, prezydencji oraz budowanie zaufania między 2016. http://bip.gdansk.pl/rada-miasta/Gdansk- Polską a Rosją. Warszawa: Analiza Fundacji Ba- -Kaliningrad,a,27655 [10 October 2016]. torego, http://www.batory.org.pl/upload/files/ DOLIWA-KLEPACKA A., 2011. Możliwości odstą- Programy%20operacyjne/Otwarta%20Europa/ pienia od reżimu wizowego przy przekracza- Kaliningrad_pol.pdf. [20 March 2017] niu zewnętrznej granicy Unii Europejskiej [in:] JAROSZEWICZ M., 2012. Niemożliwe uczynić możli- M. Zdanowicz (ed.), Przyjazna granica niezbęd- wym. Perspektywy ruchu bezwizowego pomiędzy nym elementem wzmacniania stosunków spo- UE a wschodnimi partnerami. Warszawa: Ośro- łeczeństw Polski i Rosji, Białystok: Białostockie dek Studiów Wschodnich im. Marka Karpia. Studia Prawnicze, pp. 142-157. KAMIŃSKI K., 2013. Mały ruch graniczny – pół DOMANIEWSKI S., STUDZIŃSKA D., 2016. The small roku od wejścia w życie umowy. Nowa Euro- border traffic zone between Poland and Kalinin- pa Wschodnia. http://www.new.org.pl/2Ul3- grad Region (Russia): The impact of a local visa- -03-03,maly_ruch_graniczny.html. [1 July 2015]. free border regime. Geopolitics, vol. 21, no. 3, KOLOSOV V., VENDINA O., 2014. The youth in Kalin- pp. 538-555. ingrad, Gdansk and Klaipeda: Geopolitical vision

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 The local border traffic zone experiment as an instrument of cross-border integration: The case… 111

of the world, identity and images of the other. REGULATION (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Baltic Region, no. 4(22), pp. 4-26. Parliament and of the Council of 20 December KOMORNICKI T., 1999. Granice Polski. Analiza zmian 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic przenikalności w latach 1990-1996. Geopolitical at the external land borders of the Member Studies, vol. 5, Warszawa: Instytut Geografii States and amending the provisions of the Schen- i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN. gen Convention KOMORNICKI T., 2010. Flows of persons and goods REPORT, 2015. Rossijsko-pol’skie otnošenija: across the Polish segment of the outer boundary Sociologičeskij monitoring 2012-2014. of the European Union – results of a research http://wciom.ru/fileadmin/file/reports_ project. Europa XXI, vol. 20, pp. 9-29. conferences/2015/2015-03-06-roosia-polsha. pdf [10 June 2016]. LITHUANIA HAS FROZEN TALKS ON BORDER MOVEMENT ROŽKOV-JUR’EVSKIJ JU., 2014. Some aspects of his- OF THE KALININGRAD REGION, 2014. Litva zamorozila peregovory o malom prigraničnom peredviženii torical and political geography of the Kaliningrad s Kaliningradskoj oblast’ju. http://www.rosbalt. region. Pskovskii Regionologičeskii Žurnal, no.18, pp. 104-121. ru/kaliningrad/2014/06/09/1278562.html [26 October 2016]. RUCH GRANICZNY, 2011-2015. Ruch graniczny oraz przepływ towarów i usług na zewnętrznej granicy LITHUANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: POLAND PROPOSALS DO unii europejskiej na terenie Polski w 2010-2014 NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHENGEN, roku. Warszawa-Rzeszów: Central Statistical 2010. MID Litvy: predloženija Pol’ši ne soot- Office. vetstvujut trebovanijam Šengena. http://www. newkaliningrad.ru/news/politics/k1119062.html RUSSIA AFTER THE EMBARGO, 2015. Čelnoki i vlast’: [26 October 2013]. čto stalo s prigraničnymi rajonami Rossii posle èmbargo Podrobnee na RBK. http://www.rbc.ru/ MARTINEZ O.J., 1994. The dynamics of border inter- opinions/economics/21/04/2015/5535d11d9a action: New approaches to border analysis [in:] 7947852c7187b7 [10 November 2016]. C.H. Schofield (ed.), Global boundaries, world boundaries, World boundaries series, vol. 1, Lon- RUSSIAN FOOD, 2015. Kupujemy więcej rosyjskiej żyw- don: Routledge, pp. 1-15. ności. http://www.farmer.pl/fakty/polska-swiat/ kupujemy-wiecej-rosyjskiej-zywnosci,56425.html MELNIK A., 2006. Institutional aspects of Ukraine [10 November 2016]. and Poland`s transborder cooperation: Results and problems [in:] J. Kitowski (ed.), Regional RUSSIAN-POLISH RELATIONS, 2015. Rossijsko- pol’skie otnošenija skladyvajutsja ploho. transborder cooperation in countries of Central http://www.polska-kaliningrad.ru/home/ and Eastern Europe – a balance of achieve- 10-newsfrompoland/5461-rossijsko-polskie- ments. Geopolitical Studies, vol. 14, Warsaw: otnosheniya-skladyvayutsya-plokho-otsenivayut- Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization rossijskie-smi [15 October 2016]. PAS, University of Rzeszów, pp. 117-137. RUSSIAN WEST, 2014. Za polgoda kaliningradcy MORACZEWSKA A., 2008. Transformacja funkcji gra- potratili v Pol’še 92 mln. zlotyh. http://ruwest. nic Polski. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu ru/news/24512/ [30 August 2014]. Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej. SEBENTSOV A.B., ZOTOVA M.V., 2013. Geography ALMOWSKI 2010. Problems of cross-border co- P T., and economy of the Kaliningrad region: Limita- operation between Poland and the Kaliningrad tion and prospects of development. Baltic Re- Oblast of the Russian Federation. Questiones gion, no. 4 (18), pp. 81-94. Geographicae, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 75-82. SPRAWOZDANIE MRG, 2014. Wdrażanie i funkcjo- PALMOWSKI T., 2013. Kaliningrad – szansa czy za- nowanie rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europej- grożenie dla Europy Bałtyckiej? Gdańsk-Pelplin: skiego i Rady (UE) nr 1342/2011 zmieniające Wydawnictwo Bernardinum. rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1931/2006 w sprawie POLSKA WCIĄŻ MAŁO OPŁACALNA DLA ROSJAN, 2015. Puls włączenia obwodu kaliningradzkiego i niektórych Biznesu. http://www.pb.pl/4189873,87058,pol- polskich okręgów administracyjnych do obszaru ska-wciaz-malo-oplacalna-dla-rosjan [15 October uznawanego za strefę przygraniczną oraz doty- 2016]. czące dwustronnej umowy zawartej w związku

Geographia Polonica 2018, 91, 1, pp. 95-112 112 I. Sagan • V. Kolosov • D. Studzińska • M. Zotova • A. Sebentsov • K. Nowicka

z tą zmianą między Polską a Federacją Rosyjską, ES. http://www.polska-kaliningrad.ru/home/ Bruksela: Komisja Europejska. 10-newsfrompoland/5446-v-polshe-samye-niz- SPRAWOZDANIE UE, 2011. Drugie sprawozdanie kie-tseny-na-produkty-pitaniya-na-vsej-territorii- z wdrażania i funkcjonowania przepisów doty- evropejskogo-soyuza [10 November 2016]. czących małego ruchu granicznego wprowadzo- UMOWA MIĘDZY RZĄDEM RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ nych rozporządzeniem. Nr 1931/2006, Bruksela: A RZĄDEM FEDERACJI ROSYJSKIEJ O ZASADACH MAŁE- Komunikat Komisji do Parlamentu Europejskiego GO RUCHU GRANICZNEGO, podpisana w Moskwie i Rady. dnia 14 grudnia 2011 r., Dz.U. 2012, poz. 814. STAN DEMOKRACJI LOKALNEJ NA POGRANICZU POL- VISA PRIVILIGES. 2010. http://kgd.ru/news/society/ SKO-ROSYJSKIM I JEGO IMPLIKACJE DLA WSPÓŁ- item/5940-polsha-vystupaet-za-vizovye-lgoty- PRACY TRANSGRANICZNEJ, 2012. Sprawozdanie zhitelyam-kaliningradskoj-oblasti [10 June 2016]. z projektu badawczego, Olsztyn: Uniwersytet WALSH C., 2015. Creating a space for cooperation: Warmińsko-Mazurski. Soft spaces, spatial planning and territorial cooperation on the island of Ireland [in:] P. Allmend- STRATEGIA ROZWOJU SPOŁECZNO-GOSPODARCZEGO WO- inger, G. Haughton, J. Knieling, F. Othengrafen JEWÓDZTWA POMORSKIEGO DO ROKU 2020, 2012. (eds.), Soft spaces in Europe: Re-negotiating Gdańsk: Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa governance, boundaries and borders, London: Pomorskiego. Routledge, pp. 192-212. STRATEGIA ROZWOJU SPOŁECZNO-GOSPODARCZEGO WO- WENERSKI Ł., KAŹMIERKIEWICZ P., 2013. Krajobraz JEWÓDZTWA WARMIŃSKO-MAZURSKIEGO DO ROKU pogranicza. Perspektywy i doświadczenia funk- 2025 2013. Olsztyn: Urząd Marszałkowski Wo- , cjonowania małego ruchu granicznego z Obwo- jewództwa Warmińsko-Mazurskiego. dem Kaliningradzkim. Warszawa: Instytut Spraw TANAKA H., 2006. Carpathian Euroregion and cross- Publicznych. border governance. The Journal of Comparative WIĘCKOWSKI M., 2010. Specific features of develop- Economic Studies, vol. 2, pp. 59-80. ment of tourism within the areas neighbouring THE LOWEST FOOD PRICES, 2015. V Pol’še samye niz- upon the Polish eastern border. Europa XXI, 20, kie ceny na produkty pitanija na vsej territorii pp. 101-115.

© Iwona Sagan • Vladimir Kolosov • Dominika Studzińska • Article first received • December 2016 Maria Zotova • Alexander Sebentsov • Klaudia Nowicka Article accepted • April 2017 © Geographia Polonica © Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences • Warsaw • 2018

http://rcin.org.pl