BSR INTERREG III B
Project “Rail Baltica”
Project Partner Meeting
MINUTES
Date: 21st May, 2007, from 12:00 till 17:00
Location: Rātslaukums 1 – 516, Riga, Latvia
Meeting Manager: Dans Bērtulis
Meeting Recorder: Arita Linde
Participants:
- Dans Bērtulis, Foundation “Riga Region Development Agency”, Latvia
- Benita Rugaine, Foundation “Riga Region Development Agency”, Latvia
- Arita Linde, Foundation “Riga Region Development Agency”, Latvia
- Liesma Grīnberga, Foundation “Riga Region Development Agency”, Latvia
- Andulis Židkovs, Ministry of Transport, Latvia
- Krista Meldrāja, Ministry of Transport, Latvia
- Vladislavs Vesperis, Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government, Latvia
- Kristina Udriene, Panevezys Country, Governor’s Administration, Lithuania
- Egidijus Poška, Panevezys Country, Governor’s Administration, Lithuania
- Albertas Arūna, Transport Investment Directorate, Lithuania
- Danute Cepiene, Transport Investment Directorate, Lithuania
- Edmundas Kuseliauskas , Transport Investment Directorate, Lithuania
- Arvydas Augutis, Kaunas country Governor’s Administration, Lithuania
- Dalia Dijokaite, Šiauliai Country Governor’s Administration, Lithuania
- David Oberhuber, GTZ, Germany
- Rasa Daraskeviciene, Panevezys Country Governor’s Administration, Lithuania
- Mindaugas Steponavicius, Panevezys Country Governor’s Administration, Lithuania
- Regina Leknickiene, Šiauliai Country Governor’s Administration, Lithuania
- Linda Šarķe, Zemgale Palnning Region, Latvia
- Simas Garuolis, Ministry of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Lithuania, Lithuania
- Ieva Kania, The Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government, Latvia
- Poskus Saulius, Transport Investment Directorate, Lithuania
- Aldas Milisiunas, Transport Investment Directorate, Lithuania
- Dzintars Hmieļevskis, News Agency LETA, Latvia
- Guntars Jansons, Latvian Railway, holding company, Latvia
Agenda:
- Introduction, project organizational issues (D.Bērtulis, B.Rugaine);
- Implementation issues of WP1 (D.Oberhuber);
- Planned activities in the framework of WP2 (V.Vesperis);
- Implementation issues of WP3 (D.Oberhuber);
- Discussion about activities in the WP 4 (B.Rugaine).
1. Introduction, project organizational issues
(D.Bērtulis, B.Rugaine)
Dans Bērtulis opens the meeting and describes the current situation within the project issues. We have to look forward to finish the project with any positive result. There were problems in getting Cowi report due to the late political decisions and fact that the project is under the political pressure. Due to the personal absence from work of the current project manager Benita Rugaine since June 2007 there has been nominated a new project manager- Arita Linde within our organisation responsible for “Rail Baltica” project.
Dans Bērtulis in his presentation was going through all the WP and work done within them, expressing problems experienced and proposing future activities taking into the account budget issues within each WP. The second significant issue was budget. All the project partners have to take into account the 2-n rule which means that all the money given for the project implementation has to be spent within the project implementation period. If a large amount of money is not spent it can be taken away and partners will have to pay back all the money received from the Secretariat. There are several partners who have not signed partnership agreements and do not spend their money which is very bad for the project. There is a possibility to switch the budget between partners and we are going to use that in order to use the money for the activities we need and are able to implement.
Speaking about the activities and budget changes there is a possibility to ask the project prolongation but at the moment we have to deal with the real deadline for the Secretariat has expressed their opinion not to give prolongation to the projects in this period due to the fact that the programme itself is ending. Anyway the proposal for the project prolongation has to be very well based and supported by significant arguments. We can do this procedure in parallel continuing to work on the project and observing that the deadline is 31 December this year.
Decision:
1. The Lead partner sends out the information regarding budget changes and budget reallocation.
Responsible: Foundation Riga Region Development Agency
2. The Project partners prepare and send out the budget change proposal till June 8, 2007.
Responsible: All project’s partners.
2. Implementation issues of WP1
(D.Oberhuber)
WP1 – Definition of a common strategy for the integration of spatial planning and regional development issues
David Oberhuber gives introduction on the WP1 work. The idea of the WP1 was to start with the common overview. The real situation showed that this approach does not work in practice for all the regions have different situation and strategy.
David Oberhuber informs about main interest of German partners – to promote the passenger traffic therefore next project activities can be focused to the issues connected with this area.
Discussions:
Albertas Aruuna: Cowi report was under discussion for 1 year and there was no common approach in harmonizing technical measures as well as in implementation (resources and investment package). We have to reach the common understanding what will happen after implementation of WP1.
Dans Bertulis: There is a proposal to choose one of the two studies: Evaluation on geopolitical influence of Rail Baltica or Rail Baltica Spatial Accessibility analyses from regional development perspective within WP1. This decision could be taken at the next day Steering Committee meeting.
Benita Rugaine: Total money left for WP1 is 172 120 EUR, that means that we have enough resources to prepare any of the studies but the main problem is that we have time restriction. So we have to decide what can be done till the end of the project (end of this year).
Vladislavs Vesperis: Impact on settlement structure has to be included within the study.
Decision:
To choose the second proposed study within WP1. Table of content will be prepared at the Steering committee meeting next day.
3. Planned activities in the framework of WP2
(V.Vesperis)
WP2 – Analyses of alternative routes/lines within RB development Zone
Vladislavs Vesperis: There is finally Cowi report received and its evaluation has to be finished. Now we have also the political decision that in Latvia and Estonia there will be reconstruction of Russian gauge. May be in the future we will construct European gauge but not in this 7 year period. In the future the East – North direction is very important. There are a lot of points to look forward and think about: accessibility, access points, operational aspects, legal questions, passengers etc. Ministry of Regional development and local governments accepts 3 variants of the RB route for long-term planning period and it intends to define the perspective RB route taking into the account step by step reconstruction of Russian gauge and analyse the impact of RB alignment in the nearest future. The analysis on all the perspective lines in the future has to be carried out.
Discussions:
Albertas Aruna suggests changing the title of project, because the content of project activities doesn’t conform to the beginning goals. Maybe project can be used for other issues as defined in the project proposal.
Dans Bērtulis: Ministry of Regional development and local governments has to finish the evaluation of the Cowi report and define the RB alignment. Besides there is a proposal for two more studies – RB connection into Riga region and RB connection into Tallinn. In my opinion Latvia has problems with land reservation and it would be useful to prepare study Rail Baltica connection into Riga region. There are also experts ready to carry out the study. We have to contact our Estonian partners to find out whether they are still interested in the second case study proposed.
Decision:
- To finish the evaluation of the Cowi report.
Responsible: The Ministry of Regional Development and Local Government, Latvia
- To discuss RB alignment issue at the Steering Committee meeting.
- To discuss the proposed studies at the Steering Committee meeting.
4. Implementation issues of WP3
(D.Oberhuber)
WP3 – Development of a joint approach for Case Study development and evaluation
David Oberhuber: We received comments regarding the Handbook. We understand the request to make the Handbook more practical. The solution could be to make the first chapter more compact giving description of general planning procedures. The second chapter giving description of comprehensive procedures could be shortened or even skipped if partners do not consider it useful. At the moment there are given descriptions of 3 case studies carried out by German part. The results of other case studies prepared within the project till the end of it will be incorporated within the Handbook. If there is any other studies to be useful to incorporate in this Handbook as a good example please contact us and we will do that. The choice of Handbook’s language is very important, because all partners don’t use English.
Discussions:
Dans Bērtulis: We have to decide which studies we would like to carry out with this WP. There are several proposals as you can see in my presentation. We have to choose the studies we really need and of course we are open for any other ideas as well. Via Baltica road development restrictions in Poland are mainly of Polish interest. If they are not active as partners I think we are not able to prepare such a study.
Albertas Arūna: Very important issue is cross boarder definition as well as the location of logistic centres along all RB route because the project is long – termed.
Linda Šarķe: Zemgale region is very interested in carrying out the study about the perspective logistic centre in Jelgava.
Vladislavs Vesperis suggests that a study of railway direction from the West to the East part of Latvia would be useful as well.
Albertas Arūna remarks to regard the role of all see ports – Klaipeda, Liepaja, Ventspils etc.
David Oberhuber: Who will invest money in the working-out process of such studies? German part of budget in this WP is spending.
Decision:
- To regard the proposals of discussion’s participants at the working-out of activity plan.
Responsible: Foundation Riga Region development Agency
- To validate the plan of WP3 activities at the Project Steering Committee.
5. Discussion about activities in the WP 4
(B.Rugaine)
WP4 – Initiation of a promotion campaign and of political discussions to further promote a harmonized approach
Dans Bērtulis: The PR activities will be started when there are any substantial results to present.
Benita Rugaine: From the planned activities within the WP4 there are several implemented so far. There has been RB home page developed and flyers printed. As well as there are several national coordination groups held and information supplied for Latvian media. Main problems within the WP are that Cowi report came late and political decisions were taken late also. There were no essential results to generate a positive PR campaign.
David Oberhuber presents the suggestion to organize exhibition about Rail Baltica – it should take place at the several points of Rail Baltica line. The exhibition can be organized at the end of project and it should be with national meaning.
Vladislavs Vesperis suggests changing meaning of Exhibition – it must be movable enough as well as with regional meaning. Exhibition must content general information about Rail Baltica and local, regional information about concrete part of railway line. The exhibition should be more interesting for potential visitors.
Benita Rugaine: The exhibition can be organized with the support of all project partners. I think this a good idea especially if German partners can help us with an example in organizing such an exhibition tour. As well as new Newsletters will be created in the framework of project and sent to the interested persons via e-mails. Lead partner is responsible also for preparation of final conference and final report.
Decision:
To validate the plan of WP4 activities in the Project Steering Committee.
Meeting closed at 17:10
Meeting Manager______D.Bērtulis
Meeting Recorder______A.Linde
Project part-financed by
the European Union within the
BSR INTERRREG IIIB Programme
1