Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
UDK 327.57
A. Shkaruba, O. Likhacheva, T. Vasileva, V. Kireyeu
OUTCOMES OF EU ENLARGEMENT FOR NATURE RESOURCE
GOVERNANCE IN THE REGION OF PSKOV: AN ANALYTICAL
OVERVIEW OF EU TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS
The paper explores the impact of the EU technical assistance on nature resource
governance in the Region of Pskov (Pskovskaya Oblast’), a region in North-West Russia
bordering Estonia, Latvia and Belarus. Based on the inventory of projects funded by EU institutions or organisations in EU member states since 1991, and on interviews with project
participants and/or end-users, we made observations about the nature of funded activities
and their post-project sustainability. In particular, we have found that the EU enlargement
of 2004 had signiicantly empowered transboundary cooperation of environmental actors
in Estonia and Latvia with their Russian counterparts; the most sustainable outputs have
been related to the development of physical infrastructure; water management and biodiversity conservation were apparently prioritised over other sectors, while municipal and
regional authorities and higher education institutions were the most favoured beneiciaries.
Key words: the region of Pskov, nature resource governance, international technical
assistance, transboundary cooperation.
Introduction. Relations of the European Union and Russian Federation is an exciting and a very complicated issue that is under the spotlight of scholarly studies, especially
those dealing with international relations and economics [1; 2]. The relations in the ield
of environmental protection and natural resource governance receive a lot of attention too
[9], as long as EU policies and legislation (and policy) had been inspiring a generation of
Russian legislators and their experts [12; 14], and the quality of environment and natural
resource management have been highly prioritised in most EU-Russia cooperation initiatives, starting from the irst generation of TACIS programs (1991–2003) to the Partnership
for Modernisation (2010) and the Northern Dimension (started in 1999) that includes a
dedicated Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership. Just again, most scholarly work
in this ield usually has to do with large canvas of international environmental / natural
resource governance [4; 7], EU geopolitics [8] or regional politics [6].
Local contexts are greatly underexplored as yet, although most of EU technical assistance projects had addressed speciic local issues and/or capacity building needs of organisations or local communities [5]. Furthermore, the cornerstone of the European external
policy is the promotion of “people-to-people” contacts [3], and most of those are not visible
on the large canvas. To ill this gap in environmental policy literature, we explored EU
technical assistance project with beneiciaries in Pskovskaya Oblast’ (also the Region of
Pskov) in North-West Russia. This region borders Estonia and Latvia, and therefore it was
eligible to EU cross-border cooperation programs, and potentially must have been considered as an important and promising target for EU investments in environmental infrastructure (both physical and institutional). In order to understand the impact and sustainability
of EU technical assistance on environmental and natural resource governance in the Pskovskaya Oblast’, we bring forward the following research questions:
80
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
- What was the overall impact of EU enlargement on the intensity, thematic/regional
range and effectiveness of EU technical assistance in the ield?
- What projects appeared to be less or more sustainable (satisfying the end-users)
compared to others?
- What funding instruments proved to be the most effective, and why?
- What are the geographical patterns can be observed within Pskovskaya Oblast’?
- What regional and local environmental actors are the most favoured by EU support
mechanisms?
In what follows, we explain our research methodology and data, describe our indings
and draw conclusions addressing the research questions.
Methodology and data collection. To answer these question, we took stock of completed and ongoing EU technical assistance projects in Pskovskaya Oblast’, and analysed
the interviews taken from the representatives of project teams, end-users and target groups.
We examined all the projects implemented since 1991 and involving at least one
participating organisation or company (beneiciary) from Pskovskaya Oblast’. Lists of projects have been developed based on the lists of awarded projects of the websites of EU
programs and agencies (such as INTERREG, Northern Dimension, EACEA etc.); for the
past funding programs with discontinued web-presence (e. g. TACIS), we took information about implemented projects from the reports on international cooperation by regional,
municipal authorities, higher education and research institutions, and NGOs. In order to
put the technical assistance coming from EU institutions into perspective, we have also
collected information about some of the project funded by organisations in individual EU
member states.
For each project included to the list, we tried to ind representatives of beneiciary
organisations involved to the project or, at least, end-users familiar with project deliverables. The least of interviewees is set in the Table 1. For several projects we could not ind
anybody able or willing to comment on the project.
Table 1
List of interviewees
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
Organization /
stakeholder group
The Federal
Service for
Supervision of
Natural Resources
Pskov City
Administration
Protected areas
Division or a speciic
organization
Directorate of the
Rosprirodnadzor for the
Pskov region
Interviewee description
Director of the Directorate August 10,
2016
Department on the
Head of the Department
implementation of crossborder cooperation programs
Polistovsky National Nature Deputy director, Head of
Reserve
the Scientiic Department
Deputy director, Head of
the Ecological education
and tourism Department
Sebezhsky National Park
Deputy director on
Environmental Education
Lead researcher
81
Date
July 26,
2016
August 15,
2016
August 15,
2016
August 22,
2016
August 20,
2016
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
7
Children
Pskov Regional Center of
educational centers Gifted Pupils Development /
8
Pskov Region Children and
Youth Center “Raduga”
9
NGO
10
Universities
11
12
Cross-border cooperation
center «Lake Peipsi project,
Pskov»
An institution of higher
education in Pskov, Ofice
for international educational
and research projects
An institution of higher
education in Pskov,
Botany and Plant Ecology
Department
An institution of higher
education in Pskov, Zoology
and Animal Ecology
Department
Deputy director for
research and experimental
work
Deputy Director on the
organizational and mass
work and project activities
/
Head of the center
August 9,
2016
August 8,
2016
August 29,
2016
Head of the International
Educational and Research
Projects Ofice
August 9,
2016
Researcher, involved in
urban greenery inventories
and the development of
information systems for
green space management
Researcher, involved in
the implementation of
some international projects
on water management
August 2,
2016
August 18,
2016
In July — August 2016, we have conducted semi-structured interviews with openended questions, addressing the following points:
- Capacity-building needs addressed by the project;
- Level of co-inancing required and provided, size of the EU contribution;
- Dificulties with complying with program rules and reporting requirements;
- Thematic focus and beneited groups;
- Overall satisfaction of project participants (or end-users involved to the project
implementation) about the project and its deliverable;
- Effectiveness in reaching target and other groups;
- Dissemination of project outputs and association of project deliverables with the EU
in general;
- Short- and long-term sustainability of project results.
Where possible, we tried to get information about each project from at least two
different sources of information, however in most cases it was possible only for ongoing
and recently completed projects. The interviews were summarised, compared with each
other (if more than one), supplemented with secondary data (e. g. information from media
reports). Then, in order to describe the impact of EU projects, we performed content
analysis of the collected data.
Results. The Table 2 gives an overview of our indings, including the list of projects
identiied as EU technical assistance and the technical assistance coming from private and
public organisations established in individual EU member states.
82
International technical assistance for Pskovskaya Oblast’, 1991–2016
Table 2
Funding and
funded periods
Years
EU cofunding
Partnership
Objectives, outcomes and impact
The world of water as
seen by kids
Estonian
municipalities
(1995–99), cities
of Neuss (DE)
and Norrtälje
(SE) (2004–07,
2009)
1995–
1999,
2004–
2007,
2009
No data
Initially a partnership of RU, EE
and LV cities; LV had withdrawn at
certain point
The focal point in RU was the
Regional Ecological and Biological
Centre; from 2007 by the Pskov
Regional Youth Centre “Raduga”
The original aim was to foster environmental cooperation
of RU and EE over the Lake of Peipsi; later the focus was
broadened and the competition was joined by kids from NL,
SE, LV, NO, DE and even TJ); the exhibitions were organised in Pskov and Tartu, the international jury included artists from EE, LV, BE; the project was highly publicised in
Pskov and EE media. The international competition is discontinued; however national ones still exist (interview 8).
Inventory of wetlands
in Eastern Europe,
focus on the Peipsi
lakeside lowland
RIZA — Inst.
1998–
for Inland Water 2000
Management
and Waste Water
Treatment (NL)
No data
Pskov State Pedagogical Institute An inventory of wetlands habitats of Pskovskaya Oblast’
(RU), Institute RIZA (NL), Estonian was made based on remote-sensing imagery, and combined
University of Life Sciences (EE)
remote sensing recognition and ield inventory of wetlands
within the Peipsi lakeside lowland. The resulting map is
based on the survey of 1998, and it needs to be upgraded
to serve the purpose. Other research results co-produced
during the inventory were published after 1998 and used
in biodiversity conservation and university curricula
(interview 12)
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
83
Project title
2000–
2004
EUR
593 478
Danish Ministry of the Environment
(DK), DANCEE, Ministry of Natural Resources of RF (RU), Pskov
Regional Branch of Rosprirodnadzor (RU), Administration of natural resources and environmental
protection of Pskovskaya Oblast’
(RU), Administration of Pskovskaya
Oblast’ (RU), Pskov and Gdov municipalities (RU), Ramboll Group
A/S (DK), Pskov State Pedagogical
Institute (RU), NGO "Lake Peipsi
Project" (RU)
Pskov Model Forest
Established by
WWF;
since April
2005 was under
the RussianSwedish Forest
Sector Cooperation Program
(2005–2008)
2000–
2004,
2005–
2008
No data
RU: Ministry of Natural Resources
of the Russian Federation, Administration of Pskovskaya Oblast’,
Administration of Strugo-Krasnensky District, Forestry Agency for
Pskovskaya Oblast’, Northwest Forest Inventory Enterprise, St. Petersburg Research Institute of Forestry.
EU: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SE),
Stora Enso Oyi (FI), WWF Germany (DE)
The objective was to develop a management plan for wetlands by the Lake Peipsi, including the development of a
plan on preservation of large birds of prey of the Ramsar site
and adjacent areas (published as a brochure), construction of
a watching tower for birds observations, development and
construction of an ecological trail, preparation of guidelines
for tourist guides, organization of permanent exhibitions,
development of GIS describing the site, development of recommendations for the program of monitoring, and creation
and publication of the methodical manual.
According to an end-user (interview 1), the information collected during the project is out-of-dated, however the trail
and watching tower are in use. According to researchers
involved into the survey and GIS development (interview
12), the biodiversity inventory was carried on after the end
of the project; the trail is almost destroyed (as the municipality owning it could not afford the maintenance), while
the watching tower is owned by the University and used for
teaching purposes (and therefore reasonably maintained);
the management plan has not been updated (although revisions are required every 4–5 years), but successfully used as
learning material.
The overall objective was to develop a model case for sustainable and economically successful forestry in biophysical,
economic and socio-political conditions of Russia. Tangible
outputs included a textbook on sustainable forestry for secondary schools, forestry curricula and learning materials for
a forestry college, and establishment of the “Green Forest”
private foundation to promote sustainable forestry in NorthWest Russia. The project was highly praised by stakeholder
communities, however it was discontinued and abandoned.
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
Co-funded by
Danish Cooperation for
Environment in
Eastern Europe
(DANCEE)
84
Development and
implementation of a
management plan for
the Ramsar site lake
Chudskoe/Pskovskoe,
Russia
Danish Cooperation for
Environment in
Eastern Europe
(DANCEE)
(DK)
2001–
2005
No data
Nordic Agency for Development
and Ecology (NORDECO) (DK),
DANCEE (DK), Sebezh National
Park (RU)
Management of water
resources in the basin
of Lake Peipsi
EU / TACIS
2003–
2006
EUR
2 000 000
Poyry Oy (FI), Halcrow (GB),
BCEOM
Societe
Francaise
D'Ingenierie (FR), Administration
of Pskovskaya Oblast’ (RU), Pskov
State Pedagogical Institute (RU)
2004–
2007
EUR 90 000 RU: Natural Resources Committee
Lakes Peipsi and IjsRijkswaterstaat
selmeer: joint manage- (NL)
ment proposals
for Pskovskaya Oblast’, Ministry of
Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, Pskov State Pedagogical Institute, Pskovskaya Oblast’ Inspectorate
for ish resources protection, NGO
"Lake Peipsi Project" / Center for
Transboundary Cooperation (Russia)
EU: Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation (EE), Environmental
Information Centre of the Ministry
of Environment of the Republic of
Estonia (EE), Wildlife-Estonia (EE),
University of Tartu (EE), Institute of
Zoology and Botany, Vortsjarv Limnological Station (EE), Ministry of
Transport, Public Works and Water
Management (NL), Regional Directorate of the Ijsselmeer Region (Rijkswaterstaat — RDIJ) (NL)
The central objective was to develop at the park and local
communities’ capacity for sustainable development, including capacities for local entrepreneurship and tourism; this
also included the development of management plan for the
Park, and training sessions for Park employees (interview 5).
Partly the Park renewed the management plan for the period
of 2015–2020 on self-funding basis.
The project objectives included the development of a management plan for the basin of lake Peipsi, to renovate wastewater treatment facilities in the city of Pskov, to acquire lab
equipment for water quality monitoring, to acquire wastewater treatment equipment and to build a retention point in the
town of Gdov,
The equipment and infrastructure part was mostly implemented, and the physical infrastructure is still in use (interview 12), however most positions of the management plan
are not used, as it requires more investments.
The central objective was to study and compare hydrology,
ecosystems and biodiversity of Lake Peipsi (EE/RU) and Ijsselmeer (NL), to develop practical measures for waterfowl
protection of the wetland of international importance, and to
summarize indings in a textbook.
Tangible outputs include updated biodiversity and ecosystem inventories, including new locations of bird colonies,
and the textbook, which is, however, of limited use, as students in Pskov have poor English commands (interview 12).
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
85
Towards the sustainable management of
Sebezh National Park
2004–
2006
International Summer Camps for Young
People from Boarder
Regions / “Youth
Camps”
ERDF (INTERREG IIIA),
TACIS
2006–
2007
Improved cross-border ERDF (INTERenvironment in Pskov- REG IIIA),
Chudsckoe Waterbody TACIS
“Waters”
2006–
2008
2005–
2008
RUR
4 000 000
86
Danish Cooperation for Environ- The objectives included a detailed inventory of obsolete pesment in Eastern Europe (DANCEE) ticide storages in Pskovskaya and Vologodskaya Oblast’s,
(DK)
renovation of a high capacity storage in each Oblast’, introduction of safe containers and storing the pesticides.
The project had not been completed; the pesticides were collected and stored, but not recycled [11]. The action was continued in 2011 by the Administration of Pskovskaya Oblast’
on self-funded basis [10], however the activity is greatly underfunded and the progress is very slow [13]
No data
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and In Pskovskaya Oblast’ the objectives included inventory of
Food Quality (NL), representatives wetlands and their biodiversity along the BY border, develof administrations and environmen- opment of an information system, development of priority
tal agencies of border regions in BY measures for conservation (in particular in transboundary
(Vicebsk, Mahilioŭ, Homel’), RU context), involvement of local communities through small(Pskov, Smolensk, Bryansk) and UA scale demonstration projects, and building capacity for fu(Chernigiv, Sumy)
ture transboundary and community-based activities.
Formally all the objectives have been achieved, awareness
raised and plans for future work drafted. No further activities
are really expected due to inancial constraints (interview 6).
Total:
Aluksne Town Council (LV), Ad- The central objectives were development of contacts and
EUR
ministration of Pechory district long-term cooperation between schools and youth organi123 584,
(RU), Municipal Education institu- sations in LV and RU through organisation of international
ERDF:
tion “Children Art School” (RU), summer camps focusing on the art, creativity and the enviEUR 40 593, Pskov Region Children and Youth ronment.
TACIS:
Center “Raduga” (RU), Madona All the planned activities have been implemented, no internaEUR 62 514 Town Council (LV)
tional follow ups, no contacts maintained (interview 8)
Total:
Varska Municipal Government Environmental objectives included the construction of waste
EUR
(EE), Pskov Municipal Enterprise water treatment facilities in one of the city districts in Pskov
1 245 621,
“Svoi dom” (RU), Meremae Munic- to reduce discharge of polluted storm waters to the lake. The
ERDF: EUR ipal Government (EE), Pskov City project was implemented as planned.
748 275,
Administration (RU)
TACIS: EUR
223 129
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
Danish Environmental Protection Agency
(DEPA), Danish
Cooperation for
Environment in
Eastern Europe
(DANCEE)
(DK)
Development of
BBI Matra
a programme for
(NL), Ministry
transboundary wetland of Agriculture,
conservation along the Nature and Food
border of the Russian Quality (NL)
Federation with Belarus and Ukraine
Environmentally acceptable management
of obsolete pesticides
in Pskov and Vologda
2007–
2009
Total:
EUR
292 210,
NGO “Center for Transboundary
Cooperation — SPb” (RU), “Lake
Peipsi Project” (RU), Municipal Enterprise of the city of Pskov “GorvoTACIS: EUR dokanal” (RU), Peipsi Regional De262 986
velopment Association (EE), Peipsi
Center for Transboundary Cooperation (EE)
Promoting Local
ERDF (INTERComponent in
REG IIIA),
Environmental
TACIS
Education in
Transboundary Lakes’
Regions of Latgalia
(Latvia) and Pskov
Region (Russia) /
“Transboundary ecoEducation”
2007–
2009
Total:
EUR
212 289,
NGO “Lake Peipsi Project” (RU),
Latvian ofice of Euroregion “Country of Lakes” (LV), Pskov Regional
Center of Gifted Pupils DevelopTACIS: EUR ment (RU), Daugavpils University
190 059
(LV)
The activities included reconstruction of wastewater treatment plant in Pskovkirpich area / Pskov Region, conducting
of a series of GIS training courses for specialists from Pskov
water conservation organizations; certiicates issued and a
series of international workshops on management of transboundary waters, publication of a guide to the ecotrail “Peipsi lowlands” (Gdov district of the Pskov region), implementation of management program of the Peipsi transboundary
basin, awareness raising and information campaign, development of project proposals for follow-up actions, involvement of stakeholders in EE and RU.
All formal targets have been reached; the management program is largely abandoned, printing materials (photoalbum,
ecotrail guide) are in use and greatly appreciated (interview 9).
The project objective was the promotion of local component
of environmental education in the territories of two major
cross-border lake regions of north-western Russia through
the development, dissemination and use of teaching materials and methods. The project also provided for equipment
acquisition for school biology labs and development of
ecotrails.
The formal objectives have been reached, but project sustainability was limited: the equipment and curriculum materials are in use, but international contacts between schools
are not maintained (interview 7).
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
87
ERDF (INTERImproved regional
REG IIIA),
development
TACIS
and cross-border
cooperation in the
Estonian-Russian
border region through
partial implementation
of Lake Peipsi
Management
Programme
(PEIPSIMAN)
MATRA / KNIP 2007–
2008
(NL), within
the Framework
Program in the
ield of Environmental Protection Russia —
The Netherlands
2007–2008
EUR
1 349 979
Cooperation in
collaborated Creation
of Waste Management
System in Pskov
Region / Appropriate
waste management in
Pskov Region
Baltic Challenges and
Chances for local and
regional development
generated by Climate
Change / Baltic
climate
Baltic Sea Re2007–
gion INTERREG 2008
III B
Total:
EUR
280 721,
NGO “Lake Peipsi Project” (RU),
Rosprirodnadzor (Pskov branch)
(RU), Pskov State Pedagogical University (RU)
The project aimed at promoting the Ramsar Site “Pskovsko-Chudskoye Lowland” as an important Waterfowl
Habitat among decision-makers and general public with the
aim of increasing of understanding of its natural values and
development of joint proposals for its future management.
This included preparation and dissemination of user-friendly environmental information products about Waterfowls;
raising public awareness and dialogue about the Ramsar
site natural values; Facilitating to the most appropriate decision-making about the future administrating of the core
protected territory of the Ramsar site — Remdovsky Nature
Reserve.
The formal project objectives have been reached, including
the research program, equipment acquisitions, training sessions and publications. The www site “Pskov birds” is still
operational and updated (interview 9).
Waste Management Association The project aimed and inventory, development of an appro(LV), Porkhov district administra- priate waste management system, capacity building for bettion, Pskov Region (RU)
ter waste management and awareness raising.
TACIS: EUR
252 122
Baltic Sea
Region program
2007–2013
Integrated water reMATRA (NL),
source management in Province of
Russian Federation
Drenthe (NL)
2009–
2011
2009–
2011
3 336 510;
23 partners representing DE, SE, FI,
budget
LV, LT, EE, PL and RU as an associfor RU
ated partner
partners was
c.a. EUR
100 000
The project aimed at framing at regional level and awareness raising in relation to climate change challenges. The
results included the “Baltic Climate Toolkit” supporting decision-making at different environmental levels. The project
did have signiicant follow-ups in RU, and its outputs are not
really in use, due to changes in top-management of involved
administrative district (interview 10).
Province
Milieukontakt International (NL),
The objective included development of training modules on
Province of Drenthe (NL), Wageof Drenthe:
water management for managers, policy-makers and uniEUR 22 301 ningen University (NL), Pskov State versity students. Syllabi and learning materials are used for
Pedagogical Institute (RU), Omsk
teaching graduate students at Pskov State University (interState University (RU), Moscow State view 12)
MATRA:
EUR 499 869 University (RU), NGO "Dodo" (RU)
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
88
Facilitating Effective
Management of
the Ramsar Site
“Pskovsko-Chudskoye
Lowland” as an
Important Waterfowl
Habitat
89
TEMPUS IV
2010–
2014
c.a. EUR
150 000 for
RU
3 partners from RU (including Psk- The objective was to create courses, curriculum outline and
ov State University)
learning materials to support multidisciplinary learning in
the ield of environmental governance. The materials are in
use; there are follow-ups (interview 11, 12)
MATRA (NL)
2011–
2013
c.a. EUR
10 000–
20 000
Nature reserves in RU: the Bryansky Les, and Meshchera preserves,
Sebezhsky and Smolensk Lakeland National Parks; NGOs in RU:
Biologists for Nature Conservation, Ecocentre of Tver University,
Birds&People
EUR
27 400 000
“Gorvodokanal” — Water Supply The project aims at improvement of water supply and waste
Enterprise of the City of Pskov
water treatment in the city of Pskov
EUR
1 753 375,3
RU: NGO “Lake Peipsi Project,
Administration of Pskov City, Pskov
State University; EE: Peipsi Center
for Transboundary Cooperation,
Tartu City Government, Estonian
University of Life Sciences; LV:
Latvian ofice of Euroregion
“Country of lakes”, Rezekne
City Council, Rezekne Local
Municipality, Daugavpils University
NDEP — Northern Dimension
Environmental
Partnership
Tartu, Rezekne, Pskov: Cross-Border
2012–
Green Management for Cooperation Pro- 2014
Urban Development & gram «EstoniaPlanning in EE-LVLatvia-Russia»
RU Border Capitals /
2007–2013
GreenMan
The project aimed at awareness raising about wetlands, their
ecosystem functions and biodiversity, building capacity of
stakeholders involved into the management of wetlands,
establishment of environmental educational centres under
the umbrella of Wetland Link International. In Sebezhsky
National Park all the created infrastructure is in use, information and awareness-raising events are regularly organised
(interview 5)
The project aimed at the development of effective green
management policies, practices & innovations compliant
with national green regulations & eficiently applied by local
urban actors. The outputs in RU included 2 comprehensive
inventories of green areas in Pskov, 2 new green areas management systems for Pskov, green areas in Pskov planned
and developed, training events, learning materials and GIS
(interview 9). All the objectives have been reached, green
areas are managed by the city, inventories are being updated,
Pskov University uses the learning materials (interview 11).
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
TEMPUS project
”Environmental
Governance for
Environmental
Curricula”
Establishing a network
of educational wetland
centres in European
Russia to promote
wetland conservation
through the development and implementation of a СЕРА Action
Plan
Pskov Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure Rehabilitation
Cross-Border
2012–
Cooperation Pro- 2014
gram «EstoniaLatvia-Russia»
2007–2013
EUR
1 349 979
Water Management
Project of Peipsi,
Pihkva, Lämmijärve,
Saadjärve and Veskijärve Lakes
Sun and Wind: Universal Renewables for
Local Sustainability
Cross-Border
Cooperation Program «EstoniaLatvia-Russia»
2007–2013
Cross-Border
Cooperation Program «EstoniaLatvia-Russia»
2007–2013
2012–
2014
EUR
1 682 921,2
2013–
2014
EUR
842 512,9
LV: Nature Conservation Agency,
Natural History Museum Support
Society, Gauja National Park Foundation, Dagda local municipality;
EE: Tartu Environmental Education
Centre, Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation; RU: NGO
“Lake Peipsi Project”, Sebezh National Park, Pskov regional center of
the development of gifted children
and youth, The State committee on
natural resources use and environment protection of Pskov Region,
NGO “Biologists for nature conservation”
EE: AS Emajõe Veevärk, Mustvee
Municipality, Lohusuu Municipality, Kasepää Municipality; RU:
Municipal enterprise of Pskov city
"Gorvodokanal"
EE: Tartu Regional Energy Agency,
Rõuge Municipality, Meremäe municipality; RU: NGO “PskovRegionInfo”, Pytalovo municipality,
Gdov municipality
The project objectives were to raise awareness of general
public on nature conservation, to create cooperation network
between public and non-governmental organizations in EE,
LV and RU, to develop NECs; to advance environmental education methods that attract people and provide knowledge
and skills needed for daily life; to train teachers and nature
specialists that would secure spreading out ideas of sustainable development of a long term basis.
The project was implemented as planned (interview 7, 9).
The project was investing to the renovation and construction
of new wastewater treatment facilities in EE and RU
municipalities, and to EIA, awareness raising and training
activities.
No data on sustainability and follow-ups
Outputs included renovated local heating and electricity
supply systems in EE and RU, introduction of ground heat
pumps integrated with solar PV panels Street lighting systems, trainings and capacity building seminars for energy experts and municipality employees, introduction smart boards
and energy measuring equipment in schools.
No information on follow-ups and sustainability
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
90
Promoting nature
education as eficient
mean of awareness
raising
Cross-Border
2013–
Cooperation Pro- 2014
gram «EstoniaLatvia-Russia»
2007–2013
EUR
521 939,41
Economically and Environmentally Sustainable Lake Peipsi area /
Common Peipsi
Cross-Border
2014–
Cooperation Pro- 2015
gram «EstoniaLatvia-Russia
2007–2013
EUR
8 526 607,3
(EUR
329 248,80
for RU)
LV: Latvian ofice of Euroregion
"Country of lakes", County Council
of Riebini, Local Municipality of
Dagda, County Council of Preili,
Local Municipality of Ilukste,
County council of Livani, Local
Municipality of Daugavpils; RU:
District Administration of Sebezh,
Administration of Pechory town,
District Administration of Pytalovo,
District Administration of Pskov
Municipalities and environmental
protections agencies rom EE and
RU
91
«Governance of
Erasmus+, Jean 2014–
natural resources —
Monnet modules 2017
EU experience and
challenges for Russia»
(NatRes)
EUR
29 757
Pskov State University (RU), Central European University (HU),
Lund University (SE), Erda Research, Technology, Education (NL)
Protection of endangered species
No data
Environmental agencies and protected areas in RU and SE; Polistovsky preserve was involved in
Pskov Region
Program of
the Russian
Federation and
the Kingdom
of Sweden on
cooperation
in the ield of
environmental
protection
2015–
2016
Outputs for Russia included construction of 1 wastewater
treatment plant constructed in Pskov, an inventory of water
management infrastructure in a format of high-resolution
GIS and training events for stakeholder representatives involved to water management.
No information on follow-ups and sustainability
Objectives for Pskov Region included construction and renovation of wastewater treatment facilities and sewage networks in Pskov and small municipalities
In Pskov, development of long-term strategy for water pollution reduction.
No information on follow-ups and sustainability
The planned outputs are development of modules on EU water and biodiversity governance in the context of North-West
Russia, and research supporting the learning contents; the
research indings shall be published in national and international peer-reviewed journals.
The project is ongoing and follows up the Tempus project
EnGo (2010–2014) (interview 11).
An umbrella project for a set of actions to support the CBD;
the actions included exchange of management practices
between RU and SE, and joint bioremediation activities
(interview 3, 4).
Ongoing
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
Water environment
protection and green
lifestyle measures
development in LV and
RUS border regions
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
Discussion and conclusions. The most important observation from our analysis of
EU-funded initiatives and other projects funded by private and public actors in EU member
states, is that EU accession had apparent effect on empowering transboundary cooperation
between Pskovskaya Oblast’ and the bordering states — Estonia, Latvia and (partly) Belarus.
Before the EU enlargement in 2004, the joint cooperation initiatives were mostly limited
to small-scale actions, such as joint artistic exhibitions for kids; occasionally some largerscale activities emerged too, usually when external donors were involved such as Danish
Cooperation for Environment in Eastern Europe (DANCEE). Once the EU emerged as a
neighbour of Pskovskaya Oblast’ in 2004, after the EU accession of Estonia and Latvia, the
new EU member states, received full access to EU funding mechanisms, while Pskovskaya
Oblast’ became eligible to the EU transboundary cooperation mechanisms. This gave a
push to many large-scale activities involving partners in Pskovskaya Oblast’ and Baltic
states. At the same time, the visibility of Danish and Swedish institutions, who used to be
among the most important international donors, seemed to decline comparing to the preaccession period.
Another important implication of the EU enlargement-2004 was that the EU environmental agenda and institutions created to support it, were brought to the context of
Pskovskaya Oblast’ as a component of transboundary cooperation with Estonia and Latvia.
This included the main EU environmental directives and regulatory frameworks, such as
the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) promoted through joint projects on water
management, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals, 1907/2006) and Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) through projects of chemical
safe environments, the Habitats (92/43/EEC) and Bird (79/409/EEC) directives through the
projects supporting the Bern Convention etc.
Topic wise, most of EU-funded cooperation initiatives had to do with water-related issues and, to a lesser extent, with biodiversity conservation. The high priority of water in the
environmental cooperation agenda can be convincingly explained by the pragmatic interest
of bordering Estonia and Latvia in sound water management for better water quality in river basins and water bodies they share with Pskovskaya Oblast’, as well as clear interests by
other countries in the Baltic Sea basin in water pollution reduction, including Denmark and
Sweden that traditionally supported water management infrastructure projects in the region
since the early 1990s. The projects concerned with waste management or e.g. management
of obsolete pesticides would technically come under the same category.
The focus on biodiversity can be explained by a similar set of interests, such as preservation of shared transboundary ecosystems, and protection of wetlands and migratory
bird species (with noteworthy involvement by Dutch donors). One biodiversity-related action was dealing with the development of model forest, and as such, stays apart of other
projects, as it was addressing the improvement of forestry practices in whole Russia; it was
funded by the Swedish government and arguably pursued the agenda of promotion and
dissemination of Swedish expertise in forestry. It is also worth mentioning that the only EU
Jean-Monnet project awarded to higher education institutions in Pskovskaya Oblast’ has to
with biodiversity and water governance.
The most sustainable projects identiied in the course of the study apparently had to do
with the development of physical (e. g. water treatment facilities) and, to some extent, the
institutional infrastructure (e. g. management plans integrated to regulatory frameworks).
Sustainability of environmental or ecosystem management plan was recognised by many
92
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
interviewed end-users, as a serious problem on its own, as their further implementation is
usually lacking the inancial backup, and, in particular, because budgets for their revisions
and upgrades are not normally available. Other types of activities, even such iconic ones
as the Pskov Model Forest, discontinued after the end of project funding, with their outputs inevitably degrading or getting out-of-dated (e.g. management plans or tourist guides
without sound sustainability planning, biodiversity inventories etc.). Some notable exceptions have to do with higher education, as such activities often lead to new ones, exploring
the same or different funding schemes. For instance, this includes the EU Tempus project
“Environmental Governance for Environmental Curricula” (2010–2014) resulting in the
establishment of a lively scholarly network and at least three follow-up projects (including
two project implemented under non-EU funding schemes) to the date.
We could not ind clear preferences by EU institutions in the types of environmental
actors or organisations receiving the EU technical assistance. Apparently the state actors
(including higher education institutions) and municipalities were involved in more projects,
but this rather seems to have to do with their better capacity to ind cooperation partners
and implement a broader range international projects, both as regards the topic or the size.
A standing alone example of an environmental NGO successful with project acquisition,
is “Lake Peipsi Project” concerned with water management and biodiversity conservation
in the basin of the transboundary Lake of Peipsi, which is in spotlight of EU/Baltic region
technical assistance programs.
Important indirect implications of EU technical assistance in Pskovskaya Oblast’ have
to do with research and curriculum development. Academic staff of Pskov State University
(Pskov Pedagogical Institute till 2005 and Pskov Pedagogical University in 2005–2011),
the major research and higher education institution in Pskovskaya Oblast’, have been actively involved in many projects dealing with biodiversity and water management. This resulted in hundreds of research papers, monographs, conference talks and PhD dissertations,
and contributed to the promotion of the university as a centre of excellence in these ields
in North-West Russia. The Red Book of Pskovskaya Oblast’, one of the irst regional red
lists in Russia, was among such outcomes.
Acknowledgement
The research was supported by the EU-funded Jean Monnet activity under the Erasmus + Programme (Project No. 553439).
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ademmer E. Interdependence and EU-Demanded Policy Change in a Shared Neighbourhood // Journal of
European Public Policy. 2015. Vol. 22. P. 671–689.
Casier T. The EU–Russia Strategic Partnership: Challenging the Normative Argument // Europe-Asia
Studies. 2013. Vol. 65. P. 1377–1395.
European Parliament resolution of 10 June 2015 on the state of EU-Russia relations (2015/2001(INI)).
URL:http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2015-0225&language=GA
Godzimirski J. M. EU Leadership in Energy and Environmental Governance. Global and Local Challenges
and responses. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016. 221 p.
Marin-Duran G., Morgera E. Environmental Integration in the EU's External Relations: Beyond Multilateral Dimensions. Hart, 2012. 380 p. (Modern Studies in European Law; Vol. 29).
Nystn-Haarala S. The Changing Governance of Renewable Natural Resources in Northwest Russia. Routledge, 2009. 284 p.
93
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Sotiriou S. A. Russian Energy Strategy in the European Union, the Former Soviet Union Region, and China. Lanham, MD & London: Lexington Books, 2015. 261 p.
Stang G. EU Arctic Policy in Regional Context. Policy Department, Directorate-General for External
Policies, AFET, 2016. 40 p. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/578017/
EXPO_STU(2016)578017_EN.pdf
Vogler J. The European contribution to global environmental governance // International Affairs. 2005.
Vol. 81 (4). P. 835–850.
В Псковской области начались работы по утилизации пестицидов… // Псковское агентство информации. 11.08.2011. URL: http://informpskov.ru/news/80406.html
Волкова О. История Псковского Чернобыля // Псковская губерния. 28.08–03.09.2013.
Клапцов В. М. Экологическая политика Евросоюза // Проблемы национальной стратегии. 2010. № 3
(4). С. 147–161. [Электронный ресурс]: URL: http://riss.ru/images/pdf/journal/2010/3/13_.pdf
Проблема утилизации пестицидов — одна из первоочередных эколого-социальных проблем в
Псковской области // Псковская лента новостей. 04.03.2014. [Электронный ресурс]: URL: http://
pln-pskov.ru/society/162556.html
Степаненко В. С. Экологическая политика в области обращения с отходами в ЕС и в России // NB:
Национальная безопасность. 2012. № 2. С. 48–102. DOI: 10.7256/2306-0417.2012.2.297. [Электронный ресурс]: URL: http://e-notabene.ru/nb/article_297.html
About the authors
Dr. Anton Shkaruba, Research Fellow, Department of Environmental Sciences and
Policy, Central European University, Hungary.
E-mail: shkarubaa@ceu.edu
Dr. Olga Likhacheva, Associate Professor, Botany and Plant Ecology Department,
Faculty of Natural Sciences, Medical and Psychological Education, Pskov State University,
Russia.
E-mail: olga.lich@mail.ru
Dr. Tatiana Vasilieva, Associate Professor, Geography Department, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Medical and Psychological Education, Pskov State University, Russia.
E-mail: tatyana_korotche@mail.ru
Dr. Viktar Kireyeu, Research Fellow, Erda Research, Technology, Education, The
Netherlands; Project Manager, International NGO “Ekapraekt”, Belarus.
E-mail: viktar@erda-rte.eu
А. Д. Шкарубо, О. В. Лихачева, Т. В. Васильева, В. В. Киреев
ПОСЛЕДСТВИЯ РАСШИРЕНИЯ ЕС ДЛЯ УПРАВЛЕНИЯ
ПРИРОДНЫМИ РЕСУРСАМИ В ПСКОВСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ:
АНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ОБЗОР ПРОЕКТОВ
МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЙ ТЕХНИЧЕСКОЙ ПОМОЩИ
В статье предлагается анализ влияния технической помощи ЕС в сфере управления природопользованием в Псковской области, расположенной на Северо-Западе
России и граничащей с Эстонией, Латвией и Беларусью. На основании перечня проектов, финансируемых за счёт органов ЕС или организаций в странах — членах ЕС
94
Псковский регионологический журнал № 4 (28)/2016
с 1991 г., а также интервью с участниками проектов и / или их конечными пользователями, мы обобщили сведения о характере финансируемой деятельности и по
устойчивости результатов по завершении проектов. В частности, мы обнаружили,
что расширение ЕС в 2004 г. значительно усилило потенциал трансграничного сотрудничества экологических субъектов в Эстонии и Латвии со своими российскими
коллегами; наиболее устойчивые результаты были связаны с развитием физической
инфраструктуры; управление водными ресурсами и сохранение биоразнообразия получили приоритет по сравнению с другими секторами; основными бенефициарами.
стали муниципальные и региональные органы власти и высшие учебные заведения.
Ключевые слова: Псковская область, управление природными ресурсами, международная техническая помощь, трансграничное сотрудничество.
Об авторах
Шкарубо Антон Дмитриевич — кандидат географических наук, научный сотрудник, отделение наук об окружающей среде и экологической политики, Центрально-Европейский университет, Венгрия.
E-mail: shkarubaa@ceu.edu
Лихачева Ольга Викторовна — кандидат биологических наук, доцент кафедры ботаники и экологии растений, факультет естественных наук, медицинского и
психологического образования, Псковский государственный университет, Россия.
E-mail: olga.lich@mail.ru
Васильева Татьяна Владимировна — кандидат географических наук, доцент
кафедры географии, факультет естественных наук, медицинского и психологического образования, Псковский государственный университет, Россия.
E-mail: tatyana_korotche@mail.ru
Киреев Виктор Витальевич — PhD environmental sciences and policy, партнер
и научный сотрудник Erda RTE, Нидерланды; руководитель проектов НКО «Экопроект», Беларусь.
E-mail: viktar@erda-rte.eu
Статья поступила в редакцию 28.08.2016 г.
95