The role of the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument
in the development of the Lithuanian – Polish – Russian Borderland
Dr Tomasz Studzieniecki (PL)
Prof. Valentin Korneevets (RUS)
Gdańsk, 22 września 2015 r.
How does the European Union
support tourism development
in cross-border areas at its outside borders.
Baltic Sea Region
Destination - Baltic Sea Region
Destination
Social and economic cohesion
ETC
Internal UE borders
External UE borders
Economic diversity of the BSR regions
Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant (PPS), by NUTS 2 regions, 2013
Source: Eurostat 2015
Economic diversity of the BSR countries
The borderland and euroregion
Countries Eligible area
Lithuania Klaipėda, Marijampolė and Tauragė counties and as adjacent: Alytus, Kaunas, Telšiai and Šiauliai counties
Poland Gdańsk-Gdynia-Sopot, Gdański, Elbląski, Olsztyński, Ełcki, Białostocko-Suwalski sub-regions and as
adjacent Słupski, Bydgoski, Toruńsko-Włocławski, Łomżyński, Ciechanowsko-Płocki, Ostrołęcko- Siedlecki.
Those sub regions (NUTSIII) belong to five Polish provinces (NUTSII): Pomorskie, Podlaskie, WarmińskoMazurskie,
Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Mazowieckie Voivodships (regions)
Russia Kaliningrad Oblast (region)
Local border traffic
Border crossing
Origin of the Lithuania – Poland – Russia Crossborder
Cooperation Programme
The planned expenditure on cross-border cooperation
programmes under ENPI at land borders in 2007 – 2013
Programme Amount [EUR mill.]
Poland, Belarus, and Ukraine 186.2
Lithuania, Poland, and Russia 132.13
Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine 126.71
Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine 68.63
Estonia, Latvia, Russia 47.77
Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus 41.74
Finland – Russia 36.19
the Arctic – Russia 28.24
Karelia - Russia 23.2
Total 690.81
Priorities and measures of the
Programme
Priority Measure
1. Contributing to solving
common problems and
challenges
1.1. Sustainable use of environment
1.2. Accessibility improvement
2. Pursuing social,
economic and
spatial development
2.1. Tourism development
2.2. Development of human potential by improvement
of social conditions, governance and educational
opportunities
2.3. Increasing competitiveness of SMEs and
development
of the labour market
2.4. Joint spatial and socio-economic planning
Results
• Under the Programme 86 projects have been conducted, including 16
under Action 2.1
• The total amount of funds for tourist projects was EUR 23,690,917.4.
• The funds varied from EUR 0.1152 million to EUR 3.5 million.
• The project partners usually came from Poland, and rarely from
Lithuania.
• The number of partners conducting a project varied from 2 to 13.
• The partners were divided into 4 categories: administrative units (A),
cultural institutions (C), education (E), and tourism (T).
• Administrative units participated in most projects (tab. 5).
• Statistically, 4 partners participated in every project, but most
frequently 2 partners were involved. The majority of entities from
Poland were coordinators.
Categories of results and the
number of projects carried out in a
category
Result categories Project no.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Investments + + + + + + + + + + + + 12
Products + + + + + + + + + + 10
Promotion + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1
6
Events + + + + + + + + + 9
Education + + + + + 5
Documents + + + + + + + 7
Investment categories and
activities completed
Investment
category
Activities completed
Sports-tourist
investments
Modernisation of a marina or waterside areas in the following
seaside towns: Sztutowo (PL), Krynica Morska (PL), Yantarny (RUS)
Construction of a sports hall in Palanga (LT)
Construction of a pedestrian – cyclist bridge in Taurage (LT)
Construction of rope parks in Elk (PL) and Ozersk (RUS)
Adjusting buildings for tourists: Kalvarija (LT), Dowspuda (PL),
Ozersk (RUS)
Reconstruction of tourist information centres in Pagegiai (LT) and
Sovetsk (RUS)
Cultural heritage
investments
Restoration of ruins of walls in Malbork (PL)
Restoration of a monument in Sovets (RUS
Construction of an open air museum in Kalinigrad and restoration of
a museum in Nerringa
Reconstruction of a square in Suwałki
Natural heritage
investments
Refinement of a park in Svetly (RUS)
Restoration of parks in Jurbarkas (LT) and Kalningrad (RUS)
Reconstruction of a park in Chernyakhovsk (RUS)
Strenghts
• The establishment of an activity only for tourism in
the operational programme proves that tourism is
important in this area.
• Within this activity 16 projects have been made,
most were of investment character
• For a relatively small amount of money many
undertakings increasing tourist attractiveness in the
area have been made.
• The cooperation among stakeholders in the crossborder
region have been intensified.
• Soft results in the form of technical documents and
strategies may serve as a basis for future hard
projects
Weaknesses
• The Instrument eligible area does not cover the
administrative cross-border region.
• The structures of euroregional cooperation that operate in
that area have been marginalised (Baltic Sea, Łyna – Ława,
Niemen)..
• The Lithuanian-Polish-Russian borderland lacks both a
joint vision and governing structures that could make this
vision real.
• Joint brand, which would be one of the most important
elements facilitating cross-border tourism promotion, has
not been created yet
Thank you for your attention