Dr Christer Pursiainen
Nordregio – Nordic Centre for Spatial Development, Stockholm
Nothern Dimension in the framework of the cooperation
(1st Plenary session, 17 November, 2006)
The Northern Dimension’s (ND) role in the EU-Russian cooperation should be evaluated in terms of the added value it brings to the cooperation, compared to that, which takes place within other EU-Russian forums (PCA, “four spaces”, “special dialogues”, Neighbourhood Policy Instrument etc.) and also within other multilateral (CBSS, AC, BEAC, NCM, VASAB, Baltic 21 etc.) and bilateral contexts in the ND area.
Clearly, the so-called ND Action programmes and guidelines have remained only as “empty papers”, that is, political statements of priorities or listing of activities to be done by other “actors” or means in any case. Therefore, we should ask what is achieved within the ND that could not have been achieved within other forums?
True, ND works as a conceptual umbrella for different kind of activities related to EU-Russian cooperation in the area, thus helping to legitimize and motivate cooperation. We should not underestimate this indirect function. However, the concrete issues where we can show that the ND has really made a clear difference remain few.
According to the current official ND vocabulary and line of both the EU and Russia, the ND is supposed to be a “regional expression” of the “four common spaces” between Russia and the EU (with Iceland and Norway). However, most of them do not fall into ND’s sphere or “competence”, at least not in practice.
While economic cooperation and such fields as energy cooperation are always mentioned in the ND documents, in practice these issues are negotiated or agreed upon in other forums, multilaterally (WTO, EU-Russia CES) or bilaterally (such as agreements on energy networks, transport regulations etc.).
Most of the internal security cooperation between the EU and Russia is taken outside the ND framework, in multilateral contexts (EN, OSCE, EU-Russia, CBSS’s “task forces” etc.) or bilaterally (for instance, police cooperation between individual countries etc.). The most important question here, the future of the visa regime, illustrates the point. This issue is clearly having a huge regional impact, but the decisions are take not at regional level but in the context of EU-Russian relations as a whole. ND is not playing any visible role in this cooperation.
The external security matters, which in the EU-Russian “common space” context mainly refer to “hard security” and international crisis management, are more or less explicitly excluded from the ND scope. This dialogue takes place either directly in EU-Russian cooperation, or within the UN, OSCE or Nato.
Cooperation and the integrative/regulative developments within culture, science and education take also place in other forums. Multilaterally, the integration of higher education is most notably fostered within the so-called Bologna process. The scientific multilateral cooperation, such as scientific cooperation on space research and technology, is promoted by several separate programmes. Bilaterally, between the individual countries’ ministries and cultural, scientific and educational authorities or directly between the universities or cultural institutions, there exist many cooperation programmes and projects. ND is not actually needed in order this field of cooperation to develop further.
Thus, the ND does not actually has much to do with the “four common spaces”, and definitely it is not a “regional expression” of those spaces.
Nevertheless, it seems that there is a sphere where ND has been partially successful in creating its “own” activities, namely the so-called soft security or non-military security (or safety) threats. This field could be located in “internal” or “cross-border” security issues, but, paradoxically, there is very little soft security in the EU-Russian common space of internal security.
This soft security cooperation has most notably taken place in the form of the ND Environmental Partnership and, to lesser extent, ND Public Health and Social Wellbeing Partnership. Within this “Partnership” concept, ND actors have managed to start concrete project-oriented cooperation and generate rather considerable amount of funding from bilateral and multilateral sources, including the so-called International Financial Institutions (ERDB, WB etc.).
In fact, instead of, for instance, “waiting” for or demanding a small own budget line for the ND – an issue which time to time comes up in the debates on ND – we can conclude on the basis of the experience so far that should the ND have a future, the Partnership instrument might provide the practical way ahead. The development of the “Partnership” concept may prove a key to keep the ND alive and develop it further into more practice-oriented policy instrument.
Beside environment and health, this project-based activity could be applied also to other issue areas, such as oi transport safety in the Baltic Sea, crime prevention, including trafficking etc., or to certain territory-related questions, such as for instance Kaliningrad’s special position in EU-Russian cooperation, in order to create a concentrated and well coordinated effort to cooperate in a certain field.
Should we be realistic, to start these kind of Partnerships demand initiatives at higher political level, perhaps started by one government and then put forward in different multilateral contexts (EU, regional organisations etc.). However, the more concrete planning and implementation can be taken care by local and grass-root actors, and they should be early on included in the process.
This said, one can, however, conclude that the central and most important issues in EU-Russian cooperation or integration, such as, for instance, economic integration, or free movement of people, are decided above and beyond the ND.
Still there is room for this kind of regional approach, which at least at times helps regional and local state and non-state actors to raise up questions to the higher level of EU-Russian agenda that would be possible otherwise.