Closing the gap to Europe? An assessment of change and adaptation of environmental governance in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Acknowledgements

For financial support of the project the author thanks Queen's University Belfast, and the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany.

Notes

1. See the article by Bogutcaia et al. in this volume.

2. See I. Stanyte-Tolockiene, ‘Kaliningrad Oblast in the Context of EU Enlargement’, in A. Jankauskas (ed.), Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook 2000, Vilnius, 2001, pp. 217–50; E. Vinokurov, Economic Prospects for Kaliningrad. Between EU Enlargement and Russia's Integration into the World Economy, Brussels, 2004; P. Holtom, ‘The Kaliningrad Test in Russian–EU Relations’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 6, 2005, pp. 31–54.

3. The idea of Kaliningrad as a ‘pilot region’ emerged in official discourse with the release of Russia's ‘Medium-Term Strategy for Relations with the European Union, 2000-2010’ in autumn 1999 (8.3). See also V. Nikitin, ‘Kaliningrad Chance: Realization of the Pilot Region Concept’, Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review, 2000, pp. 99–106.

4. See Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung an der Universität zu Köln, International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 1993. Environment I, 2nd edn, Köln, 1995; ibid., International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), 2000. Environment II, Köln, 2003.

5. For the definition of ‘governance’, see R. Eising and B. Kohler-Koch, ‘Introduction: Network Governance in the European Union’, in B. Kohler-Koch and R. Eising (eds), The Transformation of the Governance in the European Union, London/New York, 1999, pp. 3–13 (p. 5).

6. R. Inglehart, ‘Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies’, PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 28, 1995, pp. 57–72; A. Nordlund and J. Garvill, ‘Value Structures behind Proenvironmental Behaviour’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 34, 2002, pp. 740–56; T. Dietz, P. Stern and G. Guagnano, ‘Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern’, Environment and Behaviour, Vol. 30, 1998, pp. 450–71. However, it is questionable to what extent a common set of environmental values is possible beyond a general acceptance of the fact that environmental insecurity exists and poses a threat to individuals or society. For arguments in favour of ‘global environmental values’, see, e.g. R. Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Towards and Ecocentric Approach, London, 1992; S. Brechin and W. Kempton, ‘Global Environmentalism: A Challenge to the Postmaterialism Thesis?’, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 75, 1994, pp. 245–69.

7. Arguments for this can be borrowed from the literature on ‘policy transfer’ or ‘Europeanization’—see, for example, D. Dolowitz and D. Marsh, ‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making’, Governance, Vol. 13, 2000, pp. 5–23; F. Schimmelfennig and U. Sedelmeier, The Europeanization of Central and Eastern Europe, New York, 2005; also M. Finnemore and K. Sikkink, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, Vol. 52, 1998, pp. 889–917.

8. M. Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values, New York and London, 1973.

9. See also the article by Hutcheson in this issue.

10. See the preamble of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities, their member states and the Russian Federation (1994), or the Joint Statement of the EU–Russia Summit in St. Petersburg, 31 May 2003.

11. European Commission, Communication from the European Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Relations with Russia, COM (2004) 106, 9 February 2004, Brussels, p. 2; C. Malmström, ‘Report on EU–Russia Relations (2004/2170(INI))’, Committee on Foreign Affairs, European Parliament, Session Document A6-0135/2005, 4 May 2005, p. 11.

12. J.P. Reser and J.M. Bentrupperbäumer, ‘What and Where are Environmental Values? Assessing the Impacts of Current Diversity of Use of “Environmental” and “World Heritage” Values’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 25, 2005, pp. 125–46 (p. 141).

13. For example, the 1972 UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm was seen as a pioneering event for international environmental co-operation. The Soviet Union participated in the preparations but, together with its Cold War allies, remained absent from the event. However, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act 1975 includes joint commitments on environmental co-operation. For an overview of Russia's multilateral and bilateral environmental treaties and agreements, see the website of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, available at:<http://www.mnr.gov.ru/part/?pid=388>, accessed 20 January 2006.

14. European Commission, 2004, op. cit., p. 6 (italics added by the author).

15. For an overview on the history of EU environmental policy, see P. Barnes and I. Barnes, Environmental Policy in the European Union, Cheltenham, 1999, pp. 24–58.

16. See A. Weale et al., Environmental Governance in Europe, Oxford, 2000; M. Andersen and D. Liefferink (eds), European Environmental Policy: The Pioneers, Manchester/New York, 1997.

17. European Environmental Bureau, The Environmental Results of the Accession Process. Observations from Environmental Organisations in the New Member States, Brussels, 2004, pp. 2–5.

18. M. Haverland, ‘The Impact of the European Union on Environmental Politics’, in K. Featherstone and C. Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanisation, Oxford, 2003, pp. 203–21; T. Börzel, Environmental Leaders and Laggards in Europe. Why there is (not) a ‘Southern Problem’, Aldershot, 2003.

19. European Commission, Special Eurobarometer: The Attitudes of European Citizens Towards Environment [sic], Brussels, 2005; A. Weale et al., op cit., 2000, pp. 237–46; R. Inglehart, op. cit., 1995.

20. E. Bomberg, Green Parties and Politics in the European Union, London/New York, 1998; P. Rawcliffe, Environmental Pressure Groups in Transition, Basingstoke, 1998; A. Weale et al., 2000, op cit., pp. 456–67.

21. C. Knill and A. Lenschow, ‘Do New Brooms Really Sweep Cleaner? Implementation of New Instruments in EU Environmental Policy’, in C. Knill and A. Lenschow (eds), Implementing EU Environmental Policy: New Directions and Old Problems, Manchester, 2000, pp. 251–86; V. Rittberger and J. Richardson, ‘Old Wine in New Bottles? The Commission and the Use of Environmental Policy Instruments’, Public Administration, Vol. 81, 2003, pp. 575–606 (pp. 578–9).

22. H. Parsons (ed.), Marx and Engels on Ecology, Westport, 1997, pp. 8–27.

23. V.-P. Tynkkynen and I. Massa, ‘Introduction’, in I. Massa and V.-P. Tynkkynen (eds), The Struggle for Russian Environmental Policy, Helsinki, 2001, pp. 11–26 (p. 5).

24. P. Pryde, Environmental Management in the Soviet Union, Cambridge, 1991; N. Mirovitskaya, ‘The Environmental Movement in the Former Soviet Union’, in A. Tickle and I. Welsh (eds), Environment and Society in Eastern Europe, Essex, 1998, pp. 30–66.

25. N. Mirovitskaya, op. cit., 1998; P. Pryde, op. cit., 1991; L. Henry, ‘Two Paths to a Greener Future: Environmentalism and Civil Society Development in Russia’, Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 10, 2002, pp. 184–207.

26. Zh. Osipchuk, ‘Nashi deti obrecheny bolet’, Spectrum, 2004. Available online at:<http://www.spectrum.net.ru/russian/archiverus2004.htm#articles4>, accessed 20 January 2006.

27. H. Kropinova, ‘Environmental Issues of the Kaliningrad Region’, in P. Joenniemi and J. Prawitz (eds), Kaliningrad: The European Amber Region, Aldershot, 1998, pp. 96–106; Environmental Resources Management, A Report on the Environment for Kaliningrad, Report for the European Commission, London, 2002.

28. N. Smorodinskaya, ‘Kaliningrad's Economic Growth Problem’, in O. Antonenko and K. Pinnick (eds), Russia and the European Union: Prospects for a New Relationship, London/New York, 2005, pp. 263–81.

29. A. Klemeshev and G. Fedorov, Ot izolirovannogo eksklava – k ‘koridory pazvitiya’, Kaliningrad, 2004, p. 120.

30. J. Crotty and A. Crane, ‘Transitions in Environmental Risk in a Transitional Economy: Management Capability and Community Trust in Russia’, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 7, 2004, pp. 419–29 (p. 414); A. Cherp et al., ‘Economic Transition and Environmental Sustainability: Effects of Economic Restructuring on Air Pollution in the Russian Federation’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 68, 2003, pp. 141–51; S. Archibald et al., ‘Market Liberalisation and Sustainability in Transition: Turning Points and Trends in Central and Eastern Europe’, Environmental Politics, Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 266–89.

31. C. Ross, Federalism and Democratisation in Russia, Manchester/New York, 2002, pp. 92–136.

32. O. Yanitsky, Russian Greens in a Risk Society: A Structural Analysis, Helsinki, 2000.

33. However, in accordance with §3.2 of the Russian party law (2001), organizations can only register as parties if they can prove an organizational structure and sufficient membership across the Russian Federation. Regional organizations have lost their party status and potential for activity and influence. (Federal'nyi zakon ‘O politicheskikh partiyakh’, Law No. 95-F3, 11 July 2001, Sobranie zakondatel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii, No. 29, 2001, §2950. An amendment further expanding these requirements was published in Rossiiskaya Gazeta, 24 December 2004.)

34. This opinion was expressed by various representatives from environmental NGOs and municipal authorities in Kaliningrad during interviews with the author in October 2004 and January 2005.

35. O. Yanitsky, ‘The Environmental Movement in a Hostile Context. The Case of Russia’, International Sociology, Vol. 14, 1999, 157–72; J. Abrams and M. Auer, ‘The Disappearance of Popular Environmental Activism in Post-Soviet Russia’, in M. Auer (ed.), Restoring Cursed Earth, Lanham MD, 2004, pp. 145–74.

36. J. Crotty, ‘Managing Civil Society: Democratisation and the Environmental Movement in a Russian Region’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 36, 2003, pp. 489–508. His assessment builds on evidence of environmental movements in the Samara region.

37. E. Carnaghan, ‘Thinking about Democracy: Interviews with Russian Citizens’, Slavic Review, Vol. 60, 2001, pp. 336–66; R. Rose, ‘A Decade of New Russia Barometer Surveys’ Studies in Public Policy, Vol. 360, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 2002.

38. H.-M. Birkenbach and C. Wellmann, Zivilgesellschaft in Kaliningrad. Eine Explorationsstudie zur Förderung partnerschaftlicher Zusammenarbeit erstellt im Auftrag des Schleswig-Holsteinischen Landtages, Kiel, 2000.

39. This assessment was shared by respondents in interviews conducted by the author in the Kaliningrad region in October 2004 and January 2005, including leaders and members of several environmental NGOs and environmental consultants.

40. This was stated in interviews conducted by the author in January 2005 with a deputy of the Regional Duma and member of the committee responsible for questions related to the environment.

41. OECD, The Use of Economic Instruments for Pollution Control and Natural Resource Management in EECA, Report of the 14th EAP Task Force Meeting, 10–11 February 2003, Paris, 2003.

42. See the Law of the Kaliningrad Oblast' on the Regional Budget for the Year 2005, adopted in the Regional Duma, 23 December 2004; The World Bank, Environmental Management in Russia: Status, Directions and Policy Needs, 28 July 2004, Washington DC, 2004, pp. 38–40.

43. For example, for the projects outlined in the Regional Plan on Activities in Environmental Protection 2000–2001, only 0.25% of the envisaged financial resources had been collected and provided for implementation.

44. I. Oldberg, ‘The Emergence of a Regional Identity in the Kaliningrad Oblast’, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 35, 2000, pp. 269–8; C. Browning and P. Joenniemi, The Identity of Kaliningrad: Russian, European or a Third Space?, unpublished conference paper, 2002, pp. 14–19.

45. A recent and well-publicized example of protest is that of Lithuania and other Baltic Sea states against the exploration and, since June 2004, exploitation of oil fields off the Kaliningrad coast, only 6 km from Lithuanian maritime territory and 20 km to the Curonian Spit Natural Park that is shared by Russia and Lithuania.

46. The EU's TACIS project EKOMAN (2001–2002) aimed at the development and implementation of a ‘Regional Ecological Policy Management for Sustainable Development’ in Kaliningrad. However, of the three legislative acts that were drafted, and numerous further suggestions, only one made it as far as a parliamentary debate and was adopted. An EU ‘LIFE—Third Country’ project (2002–2005) sought to improve the ability of local authorities in Kaliningrad City to develop solutions for environmental problems, including a development plan and a reorganization of the environment-related institutional structure in Kaliningrad's city administration. Moreover, the project itself aimed at and facilitated the inclusion of an environmental NGO (Ecodefense!) as well as the broader public.

47. L. Powell, ‘Western and Russian Environmental NGOs: A Greener Russia?’, in S. Mendelson and J. Glenn (eds), The Power and Limits of NGOs: A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, New York, 2002, pp. 126–51.

48. Feshbach, Murray, ‘The Role of External Assistance on Environmental and Health Policies in Russia’, in K. Dawisha (ed.), The International Dimension of Post-Communist Transitions in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, Armonk/London, 1997, pp. 379–97.

49. The ‘Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership’, established in 2001, is an example for this, bringing together and co-ordinating activities of international financial institutions such as EBRD, EIB, etc. and national agencies such as SEPA (Sweden), DEPA (Denmark), etc. Three NDEP projects for Kaliningrad region with budgets of approximately €20 m, €50 m and €90 m have been decided on and are in preparation.

50. Resulting from a public initiative and campaign in 2004–5, a local referendum took place in May 2005 in the municipality of Svetliy in the Kaliningrad region, in which 98% of the votes rejected the plans. To be a legally binding decision, 50% of the registered electorate should have participated, but only 48.5% did so—a shortage of just 333 votes. However, public protests against the plans have continued since, and the debate and issue has now involved regional courts and political leadership, leaving open the possibility for a final decision against the construction plans.