International Project co-financed by the European Commission, EuropeAid
E>ridg<
Fostering mutual understanding
and co-operation of the EU with Belarus,
Moldova, Russia and Ukraine 2008 - 2012
CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION AS A TOOL OF SPATIAL INTEGRATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN EU AND EASTERN PARTNER
COUNTRIES
Editors: Silvo Devetak, Olesea Sirbu
Maribor, 2012
Cross-Border Cooperation as a Tool of Spatial Integration and Cooperation between EU and Eastern Partner Countries
© ISCOMET Institute for Ethnic and Regional Studies, 2012 Publisher:
ISCOMET Institute for Ethnic and Regional Studies Pupinova ulica 6 SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia www.iscomet.org
Editors in Chief: Dr. Silvo Devetak Dr. Olesea Sirbu
Managing Editors: Franc Mlinar, MA Jasmina Klojčnik
Graphic design: ISCOMET Institute
Prepared and printed by: ISCOMET Institute
Publication is published in electronic version (DVD) and available also on internet address www.iscomet.org
CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana
339.92(082)
CROSS-border cooperation as a tool of spatial integration and cooperation between EU and eastern partner countries [Elektronski vir] / editors Silvo Devetak, Olesea Sirbu. - Maribor : Iscomet, Institute for Ethnic and Regional Studies, 2012
Dostopno tudi na: http://www.iscomet.org ISBN 978-961-6602-05-1 (DVD-ROM) ISBN 978-961-6602-06-8 (pdf)
263675392
This publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of ISCOMET Institute for Ethnic and Regional Studies and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.
CONTENTS Editorial Note
Expert introductory study:
Review - Cross Border Cooperation Development of European Union with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova (2004-2010)
Dr. Olesea Sirbu, BRIDGE Deputy Coordinator, ASER-Association for Ethnic and Regional Studies, Chisinau, Moldova and ISCOMET Institute for Ethnic and Regional Studies, Maribor, Slovenia

5
7
Cross-border cooperation as a tool of development and cohesion — experiences in the EU
Jasmina KLOJCNIK, dipl.oec, ECERS-European Centre for Ethnic,
Regional and Sociological Studies, University of Maribor, Slovenia (in English)	113
Conditions, problems and prospects of cross-border cooperation between Republic of Belarus and Lithuania and Latvia
Albert GAURYAKAU, Belarusian Trade-Economic University of Consumer Cooperation, Gomel, Belarus (in Russian, abstract in English)	128
The policy and legal framework of Belarus concerning regional development and cross border cooperation with the EU
Ina YAFIMENKA, Belarusian Trade-Economic University of Consumer
Cooperation, Gomel, Belarus (in Russian, abstract in English)	134
The role of wage regulation in the integration processes within the Eastern partnership
Sviatlana LEBEDZEVA, Belarusian Trade-Economic University of Consumer Cooperation, Gomel, Belarus (in Russian)	140
Trans European border network of municipalities and NGOs "Partnership East-West
Oleh LUKSHA, Executive director of the Transkarpathian Regional Branch of Association of Ukrainian Cities, Uzhogorod, Ukraine (in Russian)	147
Regional Policy in Ukraine and Cross-border Cooperation with the EU Countries: legal framework and practice
Igor STUDENNIKOV, Executive Director, Centre for Regional Studies, Odessa, Ukraine (in Russian with abstract in English)	151
Cooperation of regional and local authorities along the borders of Ukraine with Hungary and Romania
Yaroslav KYRPUSHKO, PhD, Executive Director of the Bukovina Centre for Development and Reconstruction, Chernivtsi, Ukraine (in Russian)	163
Good Practices of Social Cohesion in Cross-border Cooperation Iasi, Romania -Ungheni, Moldova for Improving Social Services
Svetlana CIOBANU, Director, Regional Centre for Sustainable Development, Ungheni, Moldova(in Romanian)	169
Involvement of local authorities in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in EU non-accession countries in the context of trans-boundary cooperation
Dumitru DRUMEA, Regional Centre for Strategic Environmental Studies
"ECOS", Republic of Moldova (in English)	176
Experience of the Republic of Moldova in Cross-border Cooperation Projects
Veaceslav GUJUJUI, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Construction and
Regional Development of the Republic of Moldova (in English)	180
The impact of the competitiveness of the industrial clusters in regional development and cross-border cooperation
Dr. Corneliu GUTU, Vice-Rector for Scientific Activity and Foreign Relations, Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova (in English)	189
RECOMMENDATION ON EU - BELARUS, MOLDOVA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE CROSS - BORDER COOPERATION IMPROVEMENTS
Adopted at the "International Expert Meeting (EM) on developing cross-border cooperation / neighbourhood programmes between the EU and Eastern European Partnership countries and Russia", held on 26 - 27 November 2010 in Chisinau, Moldova in the frame of the BRIDGE Project	197
Editorial Note
On 26-27 November 2010, the BRIDGE International expert meeting (IEM) was held in Chisinau, Moldova, which was devoted to the various aspects of developing of cross-border cooperation between EU and Eastern European Partnership countries and Russia. The Meeting was attended by 32 participants from Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Russia, Slovenia and Italy. Present were also representatives of some ministries and higher education institutions from Moldova and of diplomatic representations of partner countries in Moldova. The focus of the IEM was on the question how can the cross-border cooperation and the corresponding EU funded neighbourhood programmes contribute to a more effective many-sided spatial integration and inter-action in the areas of the EU and of the neighbouring countries. The two-days discussion brought interesting and fresh insights into the topic on the agenda; ranging from analysis of problems and obstacles to a more effective cooperation all the way to the very positive examples of the successful projects and programmes. At the end of the meeting the participants adopted the Final recommendation in which they unanimously agreed that the cross-border cooperation in the future ENP and Eastern Partnership (EP) programmes is to be considered as an important tool for the achievement of the aims of these policies and especially for creating an area of stability, peace, sustainable development and overwhelming social and economic progress on the borders, which is shared by the EU and its eastern neighbouring countries. The Recommendation was distributed for consideration to selected bodies and agencies of the European Commission and of the governments of partner countries. The positive reactions to the recommendations were sent by the highest representatives of the European Commission; for example from the Office of the President of the European Commission; Mr Manuel Jose Barroso, from the Cabinet of the President of the European Council, Mr Herman van Rompuy and from Mr Hugues Mingarelli, who is the Deputy Director-General of the EC DG External Relations responsible for Eastern Europe, Caucasus, Central Asia, North Africa, Middle East and European Neighbourhood Policy.
This publication brings an absorbing presentation of the IEM discussions. An extensive analytical introduction is secured by the review on the development of the cross-border cooperation between the European Union and the Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine in the period 2004 - 2010, which was prepared by Dr. Olesea Sirbu. In the first chapter Dr. Sirbu presents some peculiarities of the cross-border cooperation between EU and the four partner
If I Bndge
countries; while in the continuation she builds up an interesting presentation of the evolvement of the forms of spatial interaction between EU and each of the four partner country, presenting extensive examples of good practice and providing analytical conclusion for each of the country. In the continuation the publication brings contributions from the IEM; where the first session elaborated on the political and legal aspects of the inter-regional and cross-border cooperation; the second was devoted to presentation of experiences of cross-border cooperation in the context of the EU policy towards its neighbourhood. The main objective of the third session was to define the main obstacles that this kind of cooperation is facing and to determine the preconditions for a more effective cooperation in the future. In the concluding session the participants shared the view that the cross-border cooperation holds an important potential for integration of patterns of development on both sides of the border; for enhancement of the local democracy and civil society; for sustainable development, stability and prosperity in the whole wider area under consideration. The views of the participants are reflected, as mentioned before, in the Final Recommendation, which is published at the end of this publication.
The contributions are prepared in English or in Russian language, which were the working languages of the International Expert Meeting, held In Chisinau in November 2010.
Maribor / Chisinau, 2012
EXPERT INTRODUCTORY STUDY
REVIEW CROSS BORDER COOPERATION DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPEAN UNION WITH RUSSIA, BELARUS, UKRAINE AND MOLDOVA
(2004-2010)
Dr. Olesea Syrbu
contents
1.	INTRODUCTION	9
2.	PECULIARITIES OF CROSS BORDER COOPERATION DEVELOPMENT	11
2.1.	Influence of EU enlargement on the cross border cooperation with Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine and Republic of Moldova	11
2.2.	European eighborhood policy and the Eastern Partnership, in reinforcement and development of cross border cooperation along the external Eastern border of European Union	15
2.3.	Legal aspects of cross border cooperation EU- Russian Federation	27
3.	REPUBLIC BELARUS	35
3.1.	Cross border cooperation EU-Belarus	35
3.2.	Practical implementation of cross border cooperation	39
3.3.	Conclusions	43
4.	UKRAINE	46 4.1. Cross border cooperation EU-Ukraine	46
4.	2. Practical implementation of cross border cooperation	52 4.3. Conclusions	57
5.	REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA	60
5.1.	Cross border cooperation EU-Moldova	60
5.2.	Practical implementation of cross border cooperation	64
5.3.	Conclusions	68
6.	RUSSIAN FEDERATION	70 6.1. Cross border cooperation EU-Russia	70
6.	2. Practical implementation of cross border cooperation	75 6.3. Conclusions	84
7.	CONCLUSIONS	87
8.	BIBLIOGRAPHY	89 APPENDIX NR.:1	92 APPENDIX NR.:2	99
1. Introduction
Cross-border regions under its geo-economic position serves as natural "bridges" of economic cooperation of neighbouring countries; herewith their development mostly depends on the economic peculiarities and political interrelations on the international level, on the correlation contact and barrier functions of borders. In the policy of European institutions -EU and European Council - an important position has the cross border and transboundary (or interregional) cooperation under different forms. It is regarded as a universal mean, of largely understood European integration on the ground of approaches, developed by European institutions.
The Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine, and Republic of Moldova, in total have a large borders front, the length of which from Barents sea to the Black sea, makes up 6,2 thousand km. The Russian Federation borders with Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have all together - 3175 km, Belarus with - Latvia, Lithuania and Poland -1220 km, Ukraine with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania -1152 km, Republic of Moldova with Romania - 692 km. Out from the total length of terrestrial borders in the share of European countries, Republic of Moldova accounts 42%, Belarus - 38, Ukraine - 25 and Russian Federation - 15%.
EU has borders with 5 regions from Russia, 3 regions (oblasti) from Belarus, 6 regions (oblasti) from Ukraine and 12 rayons from Republic of Moldova.
One of the most important aims, which are determined by the cross-border cooperation (CBC), is the creation of opportune conditions for development of border territories. CBC - is a specific variety of regional international activity. In the European Outline Convention from 1980 on cross-border cooperation between territorial communities or authorities, to which adhered Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation and Ukraine, the cross border cooperation implies "any coordinated actions, aimed to the consolidation and encouragement of good neighbourhood relations between territorial communities and authorities, being under the jurisdiction of two or more agreed parties and conclusion of any agreements and arrangements, necessary for fulfilling this aim". CBC is realized within the powers of territorial communities and authorities, determined by the internal legal system of each party. CBC is a part of the international economic relations of border territories, which due to their status, play an important role in the global and regional systems of economic relations:
1)	existence or absence of the cross border problems;
2)	general level of cooperation development of neighbouring countries;
3)	states security requirements;
4)	social economic development level;
5)	ethno-cultural peculiarities of border territories;
6)	powers of regional authorities in realization of international activity;
7)	condition of cross border infrastructure, including checkpoints.
The ascending political and economic relations between countries stimulate the development the transboundary relations (cross border and interregional, as a whole), while the intensive mutual relations; in turn will create advantageous premises for the development of inter-state relations and regional integration.
Cross border cooperation of Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova with the EU countries, implies the possibility of receiving certain investments and technologies, a more active inclusion in the process in European integration. A vital necessity today is the modernization need of economy, social and nature conservation sectors, state and territorial administration. CBC creates for this additional opportunity. Cross border cooperation allows the regions to receive from the European partners for each project separately, financing and at the same time gives the possibility to assimilate the European technologies for administrating regional development, efficient solving the emerging social, ecological and infrastructural
problems. The emerged system of multilevel cross bordering cooperation of countries cannot assure a large economic modernization, but it creates for this certain institutional and infrastructural premises, as well helps to work out the vision about the ways of renovating the regional economy.
Cross border cooperation programmes allow solving many problems of region development. As an example, there can be mentioned the support of small and medium enterprises, of entrepreneurship and trade, transport, technologies, researches and tourism. Regions will be able to overcome general difficulties in such sectors as environment protection, nature protection and renewable sources of energy, culture and protection of historical heritage.
The innovative character of this cooperation lies in a balanced partnership: for the first time the partner-states and EU member states, are applying the same regulation concerning the project implementation, have a common budget and jointly take decisions within the framework of common administration structure. Local partners on both sides of borders identify the necessity of projects implementation, which meet the needs of their region; this gives the possibility to apply the approach "from top to bottom" and proceed from specific needs.
Cross border cooperation stimulates the economic growth and the increase of living standards on both sides of borders and facilitates the improvement of free trade conditions and exchange through the investment environment, assistance to the regional integration into European relations and transport networks. Cross border cooperation is regarded like a premise for larger processes regarding European integration and improvement of relations between neighbouring states. CBC also is seen as a mechanism of minimizing problems and shocks, appearance of new dividing lines between EU and non-joining states, as well as the harmonization of internal policy of priorities and considerations on international and regional security. Nevertheless, despite the obvious consensus of these advantages of cross border cooperation, so far its potential was not dully used. Moreover, the absence of political will and unofficial competing interests are often the impediments for efficient cross border cooperation.
2 . Peculiarities of cross border cooperation development
2.1. Influence of EU enlargement on the cross border cooperation with Russian
Federation, Belarus, Ukraine and Republic of Moldova
The enlargement of European Union in 2004 and 2007, revealed the necessity of adopting additional organizational actions, as well as new instruments, for the purpose of an efficient cross border cooperation development between EU and Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine and Republic of Moldova. In the European Commission's report: "Implementation of new mechanism for establishing good neighbourhood relations", are identified the following cross border cooperation goals:
*	facilitating the economic and social development of border territories;
*	work jointly on solving problems, emerging in such sectors, as environment protection, health care, prevention of law infringements and fight against organized crime;
*	provide the efficiency and reliability of border security;
*	organize local scale actions for population from border regions1.
Cross border cooperation (CBC) on the external borders of EU is a key priority for European policy of neighbourhood (which comprises countries from Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Southern Mediterranean), as well as for EU Strategic partnership with Russian Federation. They appear in other related policy directions, such as European -Mediterranean, Partnership (Barcelona process) and Northern Dimension. Adopting the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) considerably were improved both the quality and the quantity coverage of CBC.
The new approach, stipulated by ENPI, assigns to the cross border cooperation an important role (CBC) in so far as , unlike the other forms of cooperation, it acts for the benefit of regions on both sides of external EU borders and receives financing from external, as well as from internal budget items. That's why the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)2, includes a special regulation on CBC, and in adopted by the Commission, Regulations on implementations are specified the detailed norms of CBC realization.
The main tasks of CBC policy on external borders of EU, consist in supporting the sustainable development on both sides of the border, in solving difficulties and using the possibilities, which appear whether as a result of EU enlargement or as a result of nearness to regions, adjoining to our terrestrial or maritime borders. In particular, cross border cooperation aims to assist in:
*	encouraging economic and social development in regions on both sides of borders;
*	finding solutions for common and complex problems, such as environment protection, health care, prevention of law infringements and fight against organized crime ;
*	providing the efficiency and security of borders;
*	encouraging the cross border actions "people to people" on sites.
Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument. 2003. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels. COM (2003) 393 final: http://eur-lex.Europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ
Regulation (EC) 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 24.10.2006.
European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument. Cross border cooperation, Strategy Paper 2007-2013, Indicative Programme 2007-2010
2
The developed in EU, 2003, the strategy of relationship with neighbouring countries, after the cardinal enlargement of EU in 2004, implies the adoption for each neighbour of an "Action plan", part of which became "the new neighbourhood" programmes.
Implementation of the new mechanism of establishing good neighbourhood relations had taken place in 2 stages. On the first stage, covering 2004-2006, there were worked out Neighbourhood Programmes. On the second, which started in 2007, began the putting into practice of the developed mechanism. According to the European Commission experts, "this kind of mechanism, which is able to function on both sides of EU external borders based on the same regulatory framework, will secure a more complex approach, allowing to develop on EU external borders, simultaneously, different forms of transfrontier and regional cooperation. Moreover, it will allow overcoming the real difficulties, which, apparently, will persist and after the implementation of all the above mentioned measures, including the restriction, applied on site and spending methods of the allocated financing".4
The Russian part reacted negatively on the EU initiative of "Good neighbourhood". Russia is not considering itself as a part of this policy, counting on a special role as an independent great power and stands up against the reinforcement of Eastern influence in region. The deputy minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Federation, V.Chijov, described the new strategy as it follows: "It seems that the consolidation of multi faceted formats under the same "roof", based on one formal criterion of "neighbourhood", right from the beginning carries a conceptual flaw". 5
On the 10th May, 2005, in Moscow took place, the fifteenth, traditional meeting of Russia and EU leaders. The major total of the summit was the approbation of "road maps" on four common spaces Russia - EU, and namely: common economic space; common space for freedom, security and justice; common space for external security; common space for science, education and culture. .
Despite the fact that Russia and EU, have agreed on developing the partnership and cooperation within the framework of the four common spaces, nevertheless, separate elements of European policy, already today are used in the cross border cooperation. It is about six neighbourhood programmes, which in geographical dimension comprises all the Russian North-West territory. More detailed this will be discussed in chapter 6 of this review.
After being reformed in the end of 2006, the programme "Northern dimension", received a new impulse for realization. The key moment of the new policy "Northern dimension", is the fact that within its framework, there will be implemented "roadmaps" on the four common spaces of Russia-EU. Russian Federation, EU, Norway and Iceland have the status of partners of the renewed "Northern dimension", conferred with equal rights while taking decisions and their implementation on the basis of co-financing of the coordinated projects.
The new stage of cooperation reinforcement the with countries, bordering with EU, began with the adoption in 2007 of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), which includes the components, directly aimed on cross border cooperation.
The cross border cooperation is regarded as a municipal and regional level of "Actions plan" implementation. The implementations of these programmes started in 2004 and until 2006, were financed from the funds of TACIS and INTERREG III programmes. From 2007, these programmes were substituted by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). It is based on new principle of financing - participant-country of joint programmes must submit for their implementation at least 10 % out of the assigned sum by EU.
4	Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument. 2003. Commission of the European Communities. Brussels. COM (2003) 393 final: http://eur-lex.Europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ
5	Chizhov VA (2004) Russia-EU/ A strategy of partnership /International Affairs. - Nr. 9. September 2004
For Belarus, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine there were worked out three separate "national strategic documents" (NSD) for 2007-2013, which present the general overview on future priorities of the EU support under the adopted programmes. Simultaneously EU adopted three national indicative programmes (NIP) for 2007-2013, in which in detail are identified the priorities activity within the framework of national context of ENPI for each country. The national indicative programmes determine the guidelines for project planning in the priority areas.
From 2007, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine, and Republic of Moldova have the possibility to participate in the following cross border cooperation programmes: Black Sea, Estonia-Latvia-Russian Federation, Lithuania-Poland-Russian Federation, Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus, Poland-Belarus-Ukraine, Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine, Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova (see Annex Nr. 1). Further we'll discuss in detail these programmes.
The joint development of these programmes, major institutional innovation of European policy, within the framework of ENPI and managing their implementations - is one of the components of European good neighbourhood policy, aimed to support the stability and development of regions of both sides of border and oriented towards the attaining the four major goals of EU strategy in cross border cooperation and are planned for a period from three to five years, based on European assistance programmes.
The readiness of Russian Federation to finance the project on equal terms with EU, distinguishes it from other countries, which do not possess necessary financial resources. In particular, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine try to build relationships thus to increase the financial support for joint projects. The membership of Romania in EU, increase the chances of these countries to receive more financial funds for joint projects. Nevertheless, the present regulations on co-financing demand from these states certain investments.
From January 1, 2007, Bulgaria and Romania joined European Union, the border of which, thus, ingeniously had reached the Black sea coast. From the European leaders point of view, this fact lead to the necessity of developing a special strategy in relationship with the Black Sea region, generally on the basis of a more active EU involvement in political, economical and other processes that are taken place. The European Commission submitted for examination to the EU Council and European Parliament, its new initiative on regional cooperation - "Black Sea Synergy". The new initiative is applied to all the Eastern partners of ECBC, except Belarus, as well as on Russia and Turkey.
The necessity of working out a special regulation for this region was described in the document as it follows:
"Black Sea region is s special geographical area, endowed with natural resources and is strategically situated at the intersection of Europe, Central Asia and Middle East. With a numerous population, the region faces many challenges and has many opportunities. The region is a growing market with a development potential and important center of energy and transport flows. However this is a region with unresolved frozen conflicts, many environmental problems and insufficient border control, which creates good ground for illegal migration and organized crime. Despite the considerable positive improvements in the last years, there are still differences in the tempo of economic reforms and governing quality among different countries in the region. The dynamic regional answer to these problems can bring benefits to citizens of these countries, and as well to facilitate the overall development, stability and security in Europe. 6
The European investors are interested in participating in some project of regional cooperation between Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Romania; they declared about the
6 European Commission, Communication COM(2007) 160 final to the Council and the European Parliament, Black Sea Synergy - A New Regional Cooperation Initiative. Brussels, 11.04.2007.
intention of allocating for these kinds of projects 126 million Euro. This amount is set aside for the development of cross border regions until 2013 within the framework of joint programmes. It aims to stimulate the development of border regions of the named countries through the contacts activation between partners with the purpose of improving the social-economical and environment situation
For the implementation of this programme there are provided a non-repayable financing for regional and local authorities, non-governmental organizations, education institutions, selected during the project open tenders on cross border cooperation. The selection criteria are approved by a common monitoring committee. The minimal criteria, for being eligible for finance granting is the availability of a partner on the other part of border, possession of administrative, technical and financial potential, as well as compulsory participation of Romanian partner in the project. The cooperation projects with the participation of partners only from Ukraine and Republic of Moldova are not approved. The area of cooperation activity within the framework of joint operational programmes Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova comprises the whole territory of Republic of Moldova, in Romania - Botosani, Galati, Iasi, Suceava, Tulcea and Vaslui, and in Ukraine - Odessa and Chernivtsi regions.
The common problem of cross border cooperation was the joining of all EU countries to the Schengen agreement. People from Kaliningrad region until 2007, were travelling to the neighbouring Poland and Lithuania with a simplified customs procedure - on the ground of free, multiple entry and long term visas. The need of getting a Schengen visa made complicated the transfrontier traffic, in which was interested both the population of the neighbouring regions of Poland and Lithuania; as well as it slows down the intensity of processes of cross border cooperation in economic area. The joining to the Schengen agreement of the new EU members made complicated the transfrontier traffic of population between Republic of Moldova and Romania, as well as Ukraine with all its Western neighbours. But during the process of finding mutual agreements this problem is being solved. For Ukraine, the situation became much lighter after the conclusion of agreements of local border traffic in 2008 with Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, signed within the framework of agreements on simplification of visa regime between Ukraine and EU. These agreements stipulate that the citizens who live in the 50-km border area, can travel to the neighbouring
n
country within the limits of 50 km area, without visa . Similar agreement in 2010 started its realization between Romania and Republic of Moldova. Between Poland and Belarus, was concluded an Agreement on the rules of local border traffic, stipulating the simplified procedure of crossing the Belarus-Polish border by citizens from border territories. Similar agreement was concluded in August 2010 between Lithuania and Belarus. For Kaliningrad population, Russian Federation there is provided an option of simplified travelling on neighbouring territory, valid for 24 hours.
European Union also has border mission in region. This EU Border Assistance Mission to Moldova and Ukraine was created in November 2005 for surveying the situation on common border between the countries and to assist in fighting with contraband, trafficking and customs frauds.
Cross border cooperation is part of the European integration process. This approximation instrument of non-EU countries with Union, and in this regard, comes as a factor of building "a wider Europe". In this sense ENPI complements the launched in May 2009 project Eastern Partnership, in which participate Belarus, Ukraine and Republic of Moldova. With Russian Federation the cooperation is held within the framework of Strategic Partnership, on four "common spaces".
7 http://news-ukraine.com.ua/news/109853
Countries which became subjects of European neighbourhood policy, in varying degrees participate in cross border cooperation with EU, proceeding from their peculiarities of the promoted internal and external policy. European neighbourhood policy on regional level (cross border cooperation) is characterized by the commitment to the standard procedures, which is manifested on all the levels and in all formats of integration processes. But at the same time the unification of procedures is combined with innovative approach and continuous improvement of cooperation instruments. Thus, the action of visa regime on Eastern borders of EU is combined with a developed institutional system of cooperation with neighbour-countries. Restrictions in transfrointer traffic of population are compensated by a larger access of goods on internal market and financial aid.
The system of cross border cooperation as a result of enlarging the Eastern borders of EU, has gained new forms, impulses and instruments, which facilitate the harmonization of legal area of neighbouring countries with EU standards and thus facilitates the creation of a single with EU, legal and institutional space, which is a compulsory condition for further formation of common economic space "EU - neighbouring countries". However it should be mentioned that the harmonization process of national legislations of Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine and Republic of Moldova with the EU legislation, is found only in the initial phase, and there are a lot of work to be done in this area.
2.2. European neighbourhood policy and the Eastern Partnership, in reinforcement and development of cross border cooperation along the external Eastern border of European Union
"European neighbourhood policy is based on the premise of that, helping our neighbours, we help ourselves. It gives us new frames and new instruments of assistance in establishing the right governing and economic development on the territories, bordering with EU. It uses the valuable experience, which we have gathered from assisting the countries, in transition..., finding pragmatic solutions for difficult challenges, which Europe faces today " Benita Ferrero - Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and
European Neighbourhood Policy, October 2005
The large scale enlargement in 2004 and entrance of Bulgaria and Romania in EU in 2007 brought EU to new geographical borders. This led to the necessity of working out a complex policy regarding the relationship with Southern and Eastern neighbours. The first strategy was named as European neighbourhood Policy. After the enlargement on the East, the EU came close to the post-Soviet space (part of it (Baltic States) being already absorbed). The problem of new neighbourhood, in person of CIS member states became a topical one for EU. Formally ENP, appeared in May 2004, when was adopted the Strategy Report (Strategy Paper on the European Neighbourhood Policy). The idea came out in the 90's, and in 2003 the European Commission approved the report on "Wide Europe Neighbourhood: a new framework for relations with our Eastern and Southern neighbours" .
The key element of ENP concept is the position about the fact that the relations with neighbours should be built on mutual commitment to common values, such as supremacy of law, observance of human rights, including the minority rights, principles of market economy and sustainable development. "European neighbourhood policy implies the reinforcement of commitment to common values, was stressed in the" Strategic document "from 2004. The effective fulfilment of this kind of engagements is a key element in EU relations with
8 Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern an http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com03_104_en.pdf
partners. The EU pursuit in developing relations with each partner through the ENP (European Neighbourhood Policy) will depend on, whether indeed these countries share common values"9
On May 12, 2004, European Commission made public the Strategic report on ENP, in which were defined all the parameters, including the geographical one.
European Commission, in particular, defined as receivers, considerably increasing the financial aid on ENP: 9 Mediterranean countries, 3 Transcaucasian states (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) and Ukraine and Republic of Moldova. All together 15 countries-members of ENP, and also Russian Federation and Belarus, which are actually the EU neighbours, but did not signed with them the relevant documents, forming an area with a population of app. 400 million people, who is roughly equal to the EU number of people. Their GDP makes up less than 10% out of EU GDP, having 25 members (excluding Bulgaria and Romania), but on the other part, it was two time bigger than of those 10 countries which joined EU in 200410.
Altogether from 2005 until 2006, for implementation of programmes on EU neighbourhood policy, were allocated 955 million Euro. There should be mentioned that in 2000-2003, the main flow of funds in the Eastern Europe, which later were included in the ENP, was allocated through the TACIS programme. In particular, in the indicated period for the aid were allocated for: Russian Federation - 599,6 million Euro; Ukraine - 435,6 million Euro; Republic of Moldova- 46 million Euro; Belarus - 10 million Euro. To these amounts there should be added 241 million Euro, allocated for aid on group programmes. This increased the expenses of EU to 1 billion 322,2 million Euro11.
The economic integration of EU allows the neighbour-countries to implement successfully their reform programmes and directions of economic development policy. Establishing prosper and sustainable neighbourhood means building sound political and economic system and the foundation of solid bases of social-economic development and physical relations.
Between reforms there is an interconnection: in order to develop the trade and investments, both sides should reinforce the transport services and infrastructure links, at the same time, reinforcement of judicial and regulatory systems have a positive impact on the business and investment environment. ENP aims to establish reliable and secure borders, provide assistance in economic, social and cultural exchanges, without building an "European fortress" and establishing new diving lines.
ENP acts on the ground of partnership and participation in the implementation of reform process, realized on the basis of coordinated priorities, which meet the necessities and aspirations of countries. By means of ENP Action Plan, of the partnerships on reform implementation, established on mutual agreement of parts, there are determined short and middle term reforming priorities in a wide range of areas, among them being:
*	Political dialogue and reform;
*	Economic and social cooperation and development;
*	Issues, concerning the trade, market and regulatory reform;
*	Cooperation in Justice, Freedom and Security areas;
*	Sector issues, such as transport, energy, informational society, environment, and R&D;
9	Ibidem.
10	Speech of mister Gunter Verheugen, member of European Commission, at the Diplomatic Academy -Moscow , 27.10.2003. http://www.delrus.cec.eu.int/ru/news_45.htm
11	Communication from the Commission. European Neighborhood Policy. Strategy paper. 12.05.2004 http://www.delrus.cec.eu.int/ru/images/pText_pict/628/NNP%20Communication%20rus.doc.
* Human dimension, in particular from "nation to nation", civil society, education, public health.
Although the ENP action plans have similar structure, the fact that they were discussed with the partners, implies that the content of each of them are completely differentiated, that is corresponding to a concrete country, responds to its peculiarity of political, economic and social situation, to its needs and relation with EU.
Establishing the list of reform priorities and the schedule of their implementation has several meanings, for EU, as well as for partner-countries. For partner-countries, it constitutes a strategic valuable document. For example, for Republic of Moldova it became the central link in its internal reform strategy.
EU finds in document directions on grating assistance in supporting the implementation of these reforms, and also precise indicators, according to which the reforms are measured. For other international parties and donor-organizations, it constitutes a helpful plan for reforms, which a certain country committed itself to follow.
How are stimulated the participants of reform? As the partners come to the realization of the stipulated reform tasks in areas of ascertaining supremacy of law, democracy, human rights, oriented towards the reform of economic market, sectors and cooperation for carrying out key goals of foreign policy, EU offers to intensify the economic and political integration to the extent, surpassing the relations, which usually are offered to the third countries.
The advanced political integration means a more frequent and high-level dialogue, EU assistance in further consolidation of institutes, promoting democracy and supremacy of law, stimulating the realization of common priorities of foreign policy, such as regional cooperation, consolidation of activity efficiency of multi-lateral institutes, prevention from common security threats, such as terrorism, extremism, weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Advanced economic integration means considerable financial and technical assistance in implementation of the agreed priorities reform, carrying out transfrontier cooperation and reforms, which, in addition will help the partner-countries in using the wide access to the EU trade, offered by the participants of EU internal market (as well the assistance in gaining membership in WTO )
The new ENP principle constitutes universal, oriented towards the future, concept of stimulating the economic-political reforms, development and modernization, including elements, which are not offered to "third countries". Among these - are new forms of cooperation in stimulating the economic and social development, opportunity to participate in programmes and activity of EU organizations - and the biggest innovation - possibility "to gain a share on the internal market".
How advanced and prompt become the success in developing relations of partner with EU, depends from its potential and political will in implementing the planned reforms. As the country forwards, the stimulation of benefits are increasing. This means that, as soon as the countries determine the EU market sectors, in which they want to gain access and then (assisted by EU), implement the reform, needed to receive this access, they gradually join the EU transport, energy, telecommunication and educational links.
ENP and Belarus. In 2004, Belarus was eliminated from the EU neighbourhood programme due to the acute political contradictions between EU and Belarus administration. But this did not imply that Belarus was completely deprived from all the possibilities of cooperation with neighbouring countries and EU. It continued to participate in some regional programmes of good neighbourhood, moreover, in Europe persisted the intention to grant assistance to Belarus with the purpose of establishing there democracy, supremacy of law and etc.
However until the end of 2006, the efforts on Belarus's democratization were assessed by EU "as inefficient". Only against the background of Russian-Belarus gas scandal there was
worked out a plan of new cooperation strategy EU-Belarus. The plan comprised, on one part, concrete requirements to the country's leaders, on the other part - EU offers and promises. The demands to Belarus, named "12 EU conditions", were reduced to the implementation of democratic procedures in electing system, guarantying human rights, etc.
Euro Commissioner Benita Ferrero - Waldner on the occasion of adopting the strategy, said that: "Belarus's people have the right to know, what they lose. Our message consist in that when country will be willing to move to the genuine democracy, observance of human rights and supremacy of law, we'll be ready for the full partnership with Belarus within the
framework of ENP. This will mean considerable reinforcement of assistance, which will bring
12
to Belarus people a development of life quality".
With that, the official Minsk did not show up their willingness to implement the expected reforms. The Belarus authorities stand, assuming, that "by making compromises,
13
they will lose more, than they will gain" . . The first experience of Belarus cooperation with EU in the context of good neighbourhood policy was not a very successful one. Starting from 2009, the EU-Belarus relations became more active.
ENP and Russian Federation. Although Russia, is included in the area of ENP action, however it considers to be a special strategic partner of EU and that's why the development of its relations with Russian Federation is built according to a different logic and is recorded in other documents. During the last decade of international-legal basis for relations between Russia and EU, was considered the Agreement of partnership and cooperation, which expired in 2007. The persistent mutual interest of partners in each other, is developing against the background of increasing competitive interests,
Between Russia and EU the geopolitical competitiveness is increasing on CIS space, but on the other part, there is intensifying their economic interdependence, thus stimulating their cooperation. The share of Russian export in EU is 52% and while the foreign investments' is 70%. 14 Russia supplies 25% from the consumed gas and oil in European Union countries, and ranks third country among Europe's trade partners; USA and China being on the first positions. The total amount of European capital investments in Russia, is much more bigger than the Russian investments in Europe (30 billion US dollars against 2 billion US dollars)
The EU policy on the post-Soviet space is interpreted by Moscow in geopolitical terms, as EU is perceived as a powerful competitor for the influence in CIS area, is traditionally considered strategically important for Russia15.
In 2008, the negotiations started between Russia and EU on the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.
ENP and Ukraine Activation of ENP on the Eastern direction coincided with the Orange revolution in Kiev. The president of European Commission Jose Manuele Barroso, confirmed the EU support in reform implementation in Ukraine, qualifying the policy of good neighbourhood with respect to Ukraine "very ambitious". According to Barroso, within the framework of new EU neighbourhood policy, there can be fulfilled all the aspirations of Ukraine, including the modernization of country and receiving economic-technical assistance. The Action plan for Ukraine was coordinated in the end of 2004, and approved in February 2005. It was developed for 3 years and aimed to assist the provisions implementation of Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Ukraine and EU. The Ukrainian part relatively had registered good results in implementation of concrete programmes in different society areas. This was due to the fact that
Ibidem Ibidem
Rossiyskaya Gazeta, October 13 , 2007 . Strategy of Russia Nr. 12, December, 2006
12
13
14
in the period 2003-2006, the amount of EU investments increased by 2 times - from 50 million Euro to 100 million.16.
Despite this, the EU evaluation of Action Plan implementation by EU, was in generally a positive one, the European experts paid attention to "the enormous amount of work", which has to be done by Ukraine in order to harmonize its legislation to the European law.
Altogether, Ukraine assesses its good neighbourhood policy as evidently insufficient for its country, making definitely the European choice. In the declared by president Yushenko "National Strategy", there is clearly stated: "Joining EU - is a strategic goal of Ukraine and historical opportunity for Ukrainian society. An alternative can be only the conscious willingness to remain out of the European cooperation area and to lose all the advantages, which gives the European
„ 17
integration".17
However in the draft of new agreement EU-Ukraine developed, in spring 2007, the possibility of membership of Ukraine was not considered even in the far future. According to Benita Ferrero-Waldner "the perspective of membership is not considered as an indispensable lever in reform assistance. In Ukraine, and without this, there is observed a considerable progress in a whole range of areas such as, free mass media, energy, trade. The policy of good neighbourhood is not considered as an alternative of the discussion on the future EU borders: this is a separate process, which has its own value. EU is interested in establishing cooperation with neighbours on such issues as security, trade, energy and migration.
According to the "Euro-barometer" survey, 80% of Europeans agree that this kind of
18
cooperation is advantageous both for Europe and its partners."
At the International Conference, held in Brussels in September 2007, where participated 27 EU members and 16 neighbour- countries, the Ukrainian ambassador said that the good neighbourhood policy "cannot be considered as a foundation of EU-Ukraine relations. We'll be able to work, with the condition that Ukraine is considered an integral part of Europe", specifying that his country wishes to become a full member of EU19. Understating that EU is not yet ready for this level of cooperation, the Ukrainian part considers that the new EU-Ukraine agreement, in its legal character should be an Association agreement, developed on a period of 5-10 years, and should have a transitional character.
In February 2008, the EU-Ukraine negotiations started on the creation of free trade zones.
ENP and Republic of Moldova The European direction always had a very important place in the foreign policy of Moldova. Initially, the pro-Russian orientation of the president Vladimir Voronin, very soon was changed with the Euro-Atlantic one. After the collapse of "Kozak plan" on Transnistrian conflict settlement this tendency became determinative in the actions of Moldovan leaders. After the Romania joined EU, the geopolitical status of Moldova changed - it became a state bordering with an EU state, which could not influence on the quality and level of bilateral relations. The importance of European vector of the foreign policy of Moldova was reflected in the title of the main external-political institution, which was not simply entitled as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (MFAEI).
The Action plan EU-Moldova was coordinated and adopted by both parties in the same terms, as in Ukraine's case, that is in the end of 2004 - beginning of 2005. However the EU relations level with Ukraine and Moldova are not quite comparable. The EU-Moldova Action plan is built on the same structure, as with Ukraine, nevertheless, containing several important distinctions:
16	Ibidem
17	Inostranets Nr.4 from 07.02.2005
18	Financial Times, 05.09.2007
19	Politics, 06.09.2007
*	firstly, it is much wider, that is, in the same chapters, there is discussed in detailed each problem;
*	secondly, there was a separate position, about the Transnistrian conflict, where was indicated that in settling this problem there should be respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova within the framework of internationally recognized borders, as well to secure the observance of such principles, as respect for democracy, supremacy of law and human rights.
In December 2006, there was taken the decision for allocating financing of internal reforms in Moldova, the amount of 1,2 billion Euro (526 million Euro granted as credits, and 680 million as grants). Developed for a period of 3 years, the large-scale aid from EU and World Bank, is one of the largest for the entire 15-year history of Moldova and its amount is equal to the national budget of the country for the last two years.
In the area on European-Moldovan cooperation on foreign policy, security, and also conflict prevention and settlement, a considerable attention was paid, undoubtedly, to the Transnistrian problems. The Transnistrian settlement became especially important for European Union after the last enlargement, after Bulgaria and Romania's entry, and also the active implication of Moldova and Ukraine in ENP. Transnistria, as a conflict party with Chisinau, as a territory with preferential political influence, and with military and economic presence of Russia, naturally, does not fit into the parameters of neighbourhood policy with its unification of main political-economic standards on the European model.
In March 2005, the European Union appointed a special representative in Moldova, and in September same year together with USA, have joined the negotiation process on Transnistrian conflict settlement as observers. This was corresponding with the intentions of Moldova to weaken Russian influence in the region. EU especially for this purpose, created for Moldova a commission for cross border cooperation - EUBAM. Moldova following Ukraine , considers possible to pretend on the EU membership, in relatively near future. Moldova counts on the fact that it represents and will represent an interest for Europe as a very important component in neighbourhood policy. Without the partnership and cooperation with Chisinau, Brussels unlikely will be able to achieve the goals, regarding the association of Ukraine to the European space. In Moldova's favour act such factors as geographical position, small territory and relatively small population.
In 2007, there had started a new period in the development of neighbourhood policy. One of the most important factors of a successful implementation of any programme or plan is financing. This concerns also and the financial support of the cross border cooperation programmes, in which are taken into consideration all the actions and projects, stipulated in the "Action plan" on ENP. There should be mentioned that financing this programmes from different funds and sources makes difficult the implementation of neighbourhood policy, as the main part of these kind of organizations are not assigned for the ENP implementation, moreover the financial means are insufficient for its implementation.
Due to this, in the report "Financial prospect" for 2007-2013, the European Commission introduced the offer on creating, the so called, European Neighbourhood Instrument, which stipulates the development of a single regulation for managing the mechanism of neighbourhood, with the purpose of financing the actions in the EU, and as well as beyond its borders. Instrument will include such issues as foreign policy and internal affairs, and its financing will be carried out within the framework of one budget chapter. The
budget for European Neighbourhood policy for partner-countries for the period 2007-2013, is
20
making up 12 billion Euro . The financing have increased by one third. Besides the financial
http://www.tiga.by/news/world/2006/12/05/es/
support, European Commission promised to all countries involved in the neighbourhood policy:
*	the wide perspective in economic-commercial integration, built on the principles of free movement of goods;
*	simplification of visa regime;
*	systematical engagement of countries in joint programmes and a more intense cooperation in energy and transport areas.
ENPI - is an instrument based on the geographical principle and adjusted for the region of European neighbourhood instrument, with a budget exceeding 12 billion Euro for the period 2007-2013.
ENPI is considered the most important source for receiving financing from EU for 17 countries, for which it actually was created. ENPI means are spent on concrete countries, as well as on regional programmes for initiatives, where regional approach is needed, such as transport and environment protection areas.
This financial instrument is meant for the support of the European neighbourhood policy implementation.
A large share of means from the EU support for the partner-countries is directed for the reform assistance with using proper systems of these countries, through special financial agreements. That why, governments act as the main participants in application of these resources and this fact corresponds to the political goals of EU. However, European Commission continues to finance the initiatives in compliance with the traditional approach to the projects with the participation of non-governmental organizations or private companies, which offer for example, a local know-how.
Many difficulties encountered by EU and its neighbours, can be solved by separate countries on their own. For example: the pollution of environment, air quality, energy security and creating large maritime and terrestrial means of communication and much more other. That's why ENPI is financing also regional projects, which are considered the accelerators of regional cooperation. Regional programmes are the platform, on which such commitments are made and are fulfilled through financing of concrete projects.
Specific programmes, for certain countries or national programmes for partner countries receive a considerable predominant part of ENPI means. Each programme is thoroughly adjusted to the appropriate necessities of country. Annual programmes define how the granted resources will be used in each country and pay attention mainly to the support of reform in concrete areas.
ENPI has the following multilateral platforms for cooperation:
*	Cross border cooperation. One of the key priorities for ENPI. It comprises four directions: facilitate the economic and social development of border regions; solve common problems; assure efficient work and reliability of borders; facilitate the cooperation between nations. Budget for 2007-2013, is 1,1 billion Euro.
*	Neighbourhood investment fund, which combines grant financing from EU part and EU's member states and credits from the European state institutions, is considered an innovative instrument of European Neighbourhood policy. Oriented towards the mobilization of additional financing for infrastructure projects on the territory of neighbouring countries. Budget-contribution of the European Commission is 700 million Euro for the period 2007-2013 plus the contributions of EU member states. .
*	SIGMA(Support for Improvement in Governance and Management) Budget is 5,9 million Euro for 2008-2010.
*	TAIEX(Technical Assistance and Information Exchange) was implemented in ENPI region in 2006 with the purpose of providing short term support and consulting services to the partner countries for the implementation of actions plans within the framework of European Neighbourhood policy. Annual budget for assistance in ENPI countries is approximately 5 million Euro.
*	TWINNING from 2004, is applied on all the ENPI countries with the purpose of accelerating the cooperation actions. Annual budget changes and depends on the country; average amount is 1 million Euro.
*	Erasmus Mundus II- Partnership, has the goal to stimulate the exchange of students, scientists and professors for supporting their free movement from countries beyond EU in EU member states. Budget for 2009, was provided in the amount of 29 million Euro. The same amount will be granted for the academic year 2010-2011.
*	Tempus IV (Trans-European Mobility Programmes for University Studies). Budget for implementation of the programme in ENPI countries, annually is granted approximately 35-39 million Euro.
*	CIUDAD- Cooperation in Urban Development and Dialogue. The programme is developed for facilitating the dialogue and development between the local authorities and civil institutions in EU and beyond its borders, at the same time stimulating the efficient administration and sustainable urban development in ENPI partner-states. Budget for the period 2009-2011, constitutes 14 million Euro.
Besides ENPI, which has exclusively a regional orientation and it's applied only to the EU neighbouring countries; European Union has a range of so called Thematic instruments. They have general purpose and can be used by partner countries.
*	EIDHR( European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights). Budget for 2007 provided not less than 77,4 million Euro for ENPI states.
*	Environment protection and natural resources management. Budget for 20072010, provided 22,6 million Euro for ENPI countries
*	Food safety. Budget - 30,6 million Euro for ENPI countries.
*	Investments in human capital. Budget for 2007 - 2010 for ENPI countries, was 32 million Euro.
*	Cooperation on nuclear safety. Budget for 2007-2012, is 524 million Euro.
*	Migration and asylum. Budget for 2007-2010 for ENPI countries - 107 million Euro.
*	Non state actors and local self-governments in development. Budget for 20072011 for ENPI states, is approximately 40 million Euro.
Cross border cooperation within the framework of European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)
Cross border cooperation is considered one of the key priorities of European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI). It aims to reinforce cooperation between the member states and partner countries on the external borders of European Union.
In the prospect of reinforcing the cooperation with the states, bordering with EU, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) comprises components specially oriented towards the cross border cooperation.
The strategy of cross border cooperation has four main goals:
*	Assisting the economic and social development in border regions;
*	Solving common problems;
*	Establishing efficient and safety borders;
*	Encouraging the cooperation oriented towards people to people
Two programme models were developed:
*	Terrestrial borders programme between two or more countries, having common border (or short sea crossing).
*	Multilateral programmes, covering the maritime area.
The task of regional and local partners on both side, is to analyse their common needs and identify the priorities and actions, which have a direct connection to their local conditions. Managing programmes is the responsibility of the local or national authorities, while the management models are chosen jointly by all the participant countries of the programme.
CBC uses an approach largely modelled on 'Structural Funds' principles such as multiannual programming, partnership and co-financing, adapted to take into account the specificities of the EU's external relations rules and regulation. One major innovation of the ENPI CBC can be seen in the fact that the programmes with the participation of regions on both sides of the EU's border, share one single budget, common management structures, a
common legal framework and implementation rules, giving the programmes a fully balanced
2,1
partnership between the participant countries.
On the 3.12.08 in the communication of European Commission to the European Parliament and to European Council, was pointed out : Securing stability of a more efficient state administration and economic development of countries, situated on the East of European Union, has to do with its vital interests. At the same time, all our partners in Eastern Europe and Southern Caucasus strive to deepen their relationship with EU.
European Union's policy concerning these states should be active and clear: EU will grant support to these partners in their aspirations to get closer to EU, as well, all the needed assistance in implementing reforms, necessary for get closer to EU. All this can be achieved by realizing the Eastern dimension - a separate component of European neighbourhood policy (ENP).
For the last 15 years on the East part from the EU border have happened radical changes. After concluding the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between EU and Eastern partners, the further repeated EU enlargement stimulated the geographical approaching, while the reforms, implemented with the ENP support, secured the economic and political harmonization of these countries with EU. The EU responsibility for its partners is increasing: they should get assistance in overcoming political and economic challenges, which arise, and to support their aspiration for intensifying relations with EU. The time has come for major changes in relationship with these partners, not limiting the aspiration of separate countries concerning the future relations with EU. 22
Joint Polish-Swedish initiative "Eastern partnership" was for the first time made public in May 2008. In December 200823, European Commission submitted the proposal on draft
24
development , and in May 2009 in Prague was held the first summit of Eastern partnership.
EU cooperation with the neighbouring countries has been developed through the programme "Eastern partnership", which is offered to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
The goal of partnership, firstly, is to strengthen the statehoods of partner-states and to approach to the united Europe. While establishing the EU relations with each partner will be
http://ec.Europa.eu/Europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-cross-border/index_en.htm
22	Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Eastern Partnership.Brussels,3.12.08.C0M(2008)823final)
23	Polish-Swedish	Proposal.	Eastern	Partnership.	23	May	2008 (www.tepsa.eu/docs/draft_proposal_eastern_partnership.pdf)
24	Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Eastern Partnership. COM (2008) 823 final. Brussels, 3.12.2008
taken into consideration, to which extent the country shares the fundamental EU values in real life.
The partnership foundation makes up the common interests and values, among which
are:
*	Commitment to the principles of supremacy of law and proper governance;
*	Observance of human rights and fundamental rights, respect and protection of minority rights;
*	Commitment to the principles of market economy and sustainable development. An important role has the principle of common participation and responsibility, that's
why both parties of Eastern partnership have appropriate obligations. The goal established by the Eastern partnership regarding the political harmonization and economic integration, can be achieved only through having a big political willingness from both parts.
The conflict escalation of Trans Caucasus in August 2008, undoubtedly, accelerated the process of working out this programme and giving a stronger language. If in the initial variant of document there was mentioned that "the new EU policy is secondary in respect to cooperation with Russia and is only supplementing it", then in the final version was pointed out that "Eastern partnership will be developed in parallel with the Russian cooperation"
Initially the Russian MFA and most of the Russian experts critically embraced this external political initiative of European Union. Concerns have been raised that the Eastern partnership will create new dividing lines in Europe and will force the countries from the region to make the
25
artificial choice between the cooperation with Moscow or Brussels .
Nevertheless, the Eastern partnership cannot be regarded only like a response to Russia's action in respect to Georgia. The Trans Caucasus conflict in August 2008, accelerated the process of programme development, but the Russian factor was not its reason or purpose. The Eastern partnership is related firstly to the attempt (though not quite successful) to make more efficient the European neighbourhood policy and also to allow the new member states to speak about their external political priorities. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic, even earlier, made different proposals regarding developing EU relations with post Soviet countries. There should be mentioned that the launch of Eastern partnership was possible, only with support of the "old" member state - Sweden (Initially Warsaw assumed to develop the Eastern partnership together with Germany).
Let's analyse, what results were achieved by Eastern partnership in its first year of
acting:
*	Started the negotiation on working out new association agreements with Ukraine and Moldova. In these documents there were formulated more clearly the EU requirements on harmonization of national legal framework to the norms of EU law (acquis communautaire). Monitoring the implementation of "Action plan", reveals that, in all likelihood, the economic reforms will be more successfully adopted, and not the regulations, related to the principles of "good governance". This is partly due to the EU position. Despite the constant criticism of judicial system of region states, the EU Council declined the proposal of European Parliament to send the so called Rule of Law Mission to Moldova, in spring 2009. 26
*	In September 2009, there were prepared the assessment of the real conditions for creating free trade zone with Moldova
About Russia's attitude towards "Eastern Partnership" from the briefing of the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman AA Nesterenko March, 26 2009; Transcript of remarks and replies to Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov to media question during a press conference after a joint session of the Russian Foreign Ministry and FM of Belarus. November 25, 2009 .
Jarabik B. Moldova between elections. FRIDE policy paper N° 16. July 2009. P.4.
*	The "Mobility pact", signed with Moldova, is aimed not to ease the contacts and movement, but to regulate the migration flows.
*	Within the framework of Eastern partnership there were worked out and approved the working programmes for the four thematic platforms, for 20092011.
The work will be done on the bilateral and multilateral levels:
*	The actions on the bilateral level are aimed to strengthen the cooperation between EU and each partner country, assisting to their stability and welfare in our common interests. This assumes the modernization of contractual relation through concluding Association agreements; the prospect of conducting negotiations with the purpose of establishing sound and universal free trade zones with each country and the increase of the aid amount for satisfying the proper requirements taking into account the creation of free trade zone network, which in the future can be changed into the Economic Community of countries neighbouring the EU; the gradual simplification of visa regime in secure circumstances; deeper cooperation with the purpose of strengthening the energy security of partner states and EU; supporting the social and economic policy, aimed to minimize the inequalities inside each partner country, as well as between the states. For the capacity building of each partner country in terms of implementing the necessary reforms, it is needed a new programme on Integrated development of institutional capacity.
*	Action on the multilateral level will provide the creation of new system, which will allow the solving of common problems. Four platforms are suggested: democracy, appropriate governance and stability; economic integration and harmonization with the EU policies; energy security; and contact between the citizens. The actions on the multilateral level also will be carried out within the framework of some key initiatives, aimed to support the tasks fulfilment of European partnership, and for this purpose there is expected to attract different donor sources, funds, granted by international organizations and private sector.
In 2009 Belarus joined a variety of actions in "Eastern partnership", but taking into consideration the EU sanctions applied to this country, Belarus cannot benefit from the advantages of ENP.
Come into force of EU Visa Code in 2010 will improve the action coordination of member states in issuing visa and will slightly simplify the procedure of application submitting, but this is unlikely to change the situation, fundamentally.
In the end of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, there were launched several other projects on Eastern partnership and namely, "Integrated Border Management", "Regional energy market and energy efficiency", Fund for Small and Medium Enterprises, projects of environment and disaster management. All these programmes are in the initial phase and are oriented towards specific areas of work. They are also subjects to the harmonization of national legal framework with norms of EU law.
Repeatedly was stated that in 2013, the participant countries of Eastern partnership will receive additional financial support, in the amount of 600 million Euro, at the same time will continue the financing on ENPI. However, none of the projects, scheduled for 2007-2010, were implemented. The full work of Comprehensive Institution Building Programme will start not earlier than in 2011, because only in the first part of 2011, will be selected programmes for financing. Nevertheless, the efficiency of Eastern partnership should not be assessed only by taking into account the financial indicators. Most important for the long term prospect is the creation of communication channels, socialization of elites of post-Soviet countries, enlarging the cooperation with the civil society organizations from the region.
Notable achievement of Eastern partnership can be the considerable reliance on nongovernmental organizations (NGO) while implementing the EU policy in the region, in general and monitoring the "Action plan", in particular. Exactly in this light there should be considered the Civil Society Forum held on November 16-17, 2009.
Today we can speak about the differences between the Eastern partnership and ENP and about its influence capacity. Within the framework of Eastern partnership there will be created conditions (on the middle term) for a fully harmonization of post-Soviet legal framework with the European Union's. Largely the Eastern partnership uses the traditional EU tactics in the region "influence, but not interfere directly". The wide participation of civil society and attention paid to the harmonization of legal framework of the region states to the norm of EU law, will allow make this tactic more flexible and efficient.
In May, 2010, minister of foreign affairs of Ukraine, Constantin Grishenko, stated that the initiative "Eastern partnership" is one of many forms of cooperation between Ukraine and EU, and that "Kiev intends to make full use of it". "Ukraine considers this EU initiative, which was launched a year ago, as a promising instrument for implementation of common projects of EU and Eastern European countries. Nevertheless the period of developing the "European partnership" concept has to be already followed by the phase of implementing practical programmes with a direct and obvious efficiency for the participant countries", stressed the
27
head of Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs".
Taking into consideration the considerable achievements during the implementation of many programmes within the framework of good neighbourhood policy and Eastern partnership, there should be mentioned a range of factors that "inhibit" the good neighbourhood programmes, and also draws the attention the fact that while changing the goals and tasks of EU foreign policy there was not modified the approach of establishing relations with the neighbouring countries, the fundamental principles and methods of activity. No relations diversification was done with different groups of countries, surrounding the EU. The grounds of establishing relations within the framework of good neighbourhood programmes remained the conditioned approach, principle of reactivity, intergovernmental relations and the guideline for neighbouring countries - political willingness for Eurointegration and reform implementation. And all these principles are applied to all the countries, regardless what are the cooperation prospective with each of them.
In the programme of good neighbourhood policy, were uncritically transferred all the fundamental directions of EU countries while establishing relations with the countries from the European continent, in the period of EU active enlargement, where all the surrounding countries "were classified" on the ground of their readiness to join the European Union. This vision created the fundamental principle of relations building. The good neighbourhood programme declared "the optionality" of EU joining, but at the level of instruments and working mechanism did not provide diversity approaches for cooperation.
Within the framework of the conducted policy, there were not found the action instruments for countries, which express their unwillingness to comply of the norms and standards, offered by EU (especially in the area of political and civil institutes).
As the main destination and support of programmes, were considered the government reforms. But the readiness to changes was overestimated. The governments started to replace the long term goals with satisfying pragmatic interests. Civil society, is the area, where invariably persists the commitment to European values. But within the framework of good neighbourhood policy approaches there are no possibilities for civil society to participate at the level of intergovernmental dialogue.
http://www.regnum.ru/news/1293066.html#ixzz12MpUn9nY
Thus, the goals and references, which had to be achieved by EU in its neighbourhood policy - stable pro-European oriented surrounding - were depended on the changeable political life of neighbour countries. The subjects and organizations, striving to disseminate of European norms and values were deprived of efficient instruments on influencing the development of relations between countries.
2.3. Legal aspects of cross border cooperation EU- Russian Federation
Russia has centuries old relations with the European countries. However, since the last decades the foreign economic interests of the European states and foreign political one, are accumulated by the European Union, this led to the actualization of problem concerning the legal formalization of EU-Russia relations. A whole range of factors - economic, political, geographical - indicate of the critical importance of effective cooperation of Russia and this international organization, linked by a single European law. EU today has 27 members. There can be stated that on the European continent there are taking place qualitative changes of economic and legal reality. In this sense, becomes evident the fact that in the EU space and in the relations with the neighbouring countries, the most important becomes not the principle of peaceful coexistence, but the economic priority and partnership. The currency of these topics consists in the fact that agreements have definitely a new quality.
First of all, this refers to the agreements, in which Russia does not monopolize the foreign trade with EU. The state rather has the position as a supreme public authority, which has the purpose only of creating optimal (legal) conditions for an efficient trade and cooperation on the behalf of all businesses from the Russian part. According to the accepted engagements, the Russian Federation, for example, is obliged to refrain from a conduct, which negatively influences the trade between Russia and EU.
Secondly, another peculiarity of the existing agreements consists in the fact that they describe in detail the proceedings of legal implementation, and also the control and responsibility of both parts. There should be mentioned that this "closeness" of commercial and economic (international) cooperation was not appropriated for Russian part.
Thirdly, all the mentioned specifications of the concluded EU-Russia agreements can be called non-typical for the Russian part, for the fact that they prescribe to Russia and oblige it to undertake large scale peculiar domestic actions, in order to fulfil the contractual obligations. Thus, Russia, according to the PCA (Agreement of partnership and cooperation), had in a short term to adopt a whole set of radical domestic legal reforms (in the area of competition policy, banking activity, book keeping and fiscal system, consumer rights protection, customs law, etc.).
International activity, the main component of which is the cross border cooperation (CBC) of regional authorities and local communities in Russia is controlled by the system of legal regulations, which form three legal groups.
First - comprises the federal legal acts. The most important among these are laws: "On International agreements of Russian Federation" (from 1995), "On International coordination and foreign economic relations of Russian Federation subjects", from 1999, "On legal status of foreign citizens in Russia," from 2002, "On fundamentals of state regulations of foreign trade activity", from 2003, "On state border of RF", "On concept of cross border cooperation in RF", from 2001, and other.
An important place has the legal acts, defining the powers of regional and local authorities in realization of international relations. In Russia, these powers are established by RF Constitution and federal laws "On general principles of organization of legal and executive authorities of subjects of Russian authority" and "General principle of organization of local self-governing in RF" from 2003.
There should be mentioned that the cross border and interregional cooperation are not subject to regulation of special federal laws. The legislation in force does not make any preferences provisions for CBC. A definite exception makes the federal laws on special economic zones in Kaliningrad and Magadan regions. In this regard for CBC, a special meaning has the passport and visa, currency, customs and migration laws, norms and regulations, control of the transfrontier movement of people, money means and goods, and as well the federal goal-oriented programmes, regarding the development of border regions. An important role has also the federal goal oriented programmes in transport areas, communications, development of customs and border infrastructure.
The second legal group makes up the international documents and agreements, stipulating the goals, mechanisms and concrete areas of cooperation between Russia and the international organizations and individual countries. An important element of this legal block is considered the Russia's joining, in 2002, to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities. According to the Convention, the CBC is carried out within the framework of powers of territorial communities and authorities, defined by the domestic legislation of each party. CBC in Convention means the cooperation of authorities, as well the population of border territories of neighbouring countries. In CBC definition, written in Concept of cross border cooperation in RF, the emphasis is put on the action coordination of the authorities of neighbouring countries and border territories and the specification of cooperation goals. That is, in Russian document, the CBC is understood, first of all, as the cooperation between authorities.
This undoubtedly, narrows the social basis of CBC, allows disregarding the interests of businesses and population from the border territories, while adopting certain federal legal acts and the organization of customs activity, of migration and border services. In autumn 2006, Russia signed the Additional protocol and Protocol Nr.2 to the European Outline Convention. The Additional protocol regulates the legal status of organizations of CBC (Euroregions) and their legal personality. Protocol Nr. 2 extends the provisions of Convention and Additional protocol on the regions which are not bordering with each other. The set of Russia's relations with EU countries is regulated by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with EU. Besides the North-West regions of federal district of Russia have a range of agreements, such as the Council of Baltic Sea States, Northern dimension and other.
The practical implementation of regulations from this group directly depends to which extent the national legislation of Russia will be aligned to the norms of international agreements.
The third legal group consists of agreements concluded within the framework of its powers, between the regional and local authorities with their counterparts from the neighbouring countries.
The main directions of EU-Russia dialogue are incorporated in the Medium-term Strategy for developing relations of the Russian Federation with the European Union for 2000-2010, signed in Helsinki, on October 22, 199928.
Until 1999, Russia did not have a detailed position concerning the goals and tasks of cooperation with EU. The Russian strategy in respect to European Union was defining the principles, based on which was planned to develop the cooperation with this international institution.
The strategy mainly is focused on solving short term and middle term problems of this stage and to prepare the bases of the partnership relations between Russia and European Union. Its main legal and organizational foundation represents the Agreement of partnership
Diplomatic Bulletin.1999.Nr.11 p.20-28
and cooperation, establishing the partnership between Russian Federation, on one part and
29
European communities and member states, on the other part, 1994 .
In particular the strategy determines the area of transfrontier cooperation:
8.	Transfrontier cooperation
8.1.	To use the presence and the prospect of lengthening the common border of Russia and EU for the acceleration of level of transfrontier interregional cooperation and regions development of both parts, up to the level of standards, achieved by the so called Euroregions. Obtaining from the European Union the dissemination of cooperation of supranational and national systems of its stimulation, which are in force in the EU including the visa and border regime. Stimulate the contacts between regions of Russia and EU, and also use the capabilities of EU Committee of Regions, with the purpose of establishing humanitarian and economic relations and experience exchange regarding the local self-governing and management.
8.2.	Jointly to fill with practical content the initiative "Northern dimension", for the development of European cooperation, obtaining financial support from EU, and attracting capital from non-European countries. Help to ensure that this initiative is aimed not only to stimulate the production and export of raw materials, but also to develop comprehensively Russia's North and North-West.
8.3.	Taking into consideration special geographical and economic situation of Kaliningrad region, to provide the necessary external conditions for its activity and development as an integral part of Russian Federation and as an active participant of cross border and interregional cooperation. Determine for the future, the optimal economic, energy and transport specialization of the region, allowing operating efficiently in new conditions. Reliably equip its transport links with the mainland Russia. To work towards the conclusion, if necessary with EU, of a special agreement, providing the protection of interests of Kaliningrad region as a subject of Russian Federation in the process of EU enlargement, and as well, if possible, to turn this territory in a Russian "pilot" region in cooperation between Russia and EU in the 21 century.
8.4.	On the Mediterranean direction of international cooperation (Barcelona process), to focus on the selective participation of Russia in its actions and assure the Russian interests while creating the EU free trade zones - Mediterranean countries.
The Strategy takes into consideration the main direction and goals of EU Collective Strategies in respect to Russia, adopted by the European Union Council in Cologne, on June 1999.
The middle term strategy initially symbolized the refusal from the traditional scheme of building relationship, based on the adoption of legal-political and economic standards of EU, as the main condition of efficient realization of cooperation. The document contained provisions regarding the harmonization of economic legislation and technical standards,
30
however the Russian part stressed that this kind of process should not be one-sided.
The strategy defines:
9.	Cooperation's legal framework development. Harmonization of economic legislation and technical standards
9.1. To strive to reinforce and develop the Agreement by concluding new agreements in different areas of cooperation with EU..
29	Diplomatic Bulletin 1994. Nr. 15 - 16. p. 29 - 59
30	Emerson, Michael, Tassinari, Fabrizio and Marius Vahl: New Agreement between the EU and Russia: Why, What and When?, inCEPS Policy Brief, No. 103, May 2006, page 6 Ibid, Annex 3, page 15
9.2.	To work towards reaching an agreement with EU to jointly develop and sign a new wide agreement on strategic partnership and cooperation in the 21 century, designed to replace the Agreement. Move to it gradually, as the Agreement is implemented, on the basis of the concrete achieved results, as well as the common positions in the strategies on developing partnership and cooperation between Russia and European Union.
9.3.	Preserving the independence of Russian legal system and legislation, to work towards its convergence and harmonization with the EU legislation, in areas of most active cooperation between Russia and EU, including the Parliamentary Cooperation Committee.
9.4.	Preserving in Russia, its own systems of standards and certification, to conduct their harmonization with similar systems in the areas of most active trade and technical cooperation between Russia and European Union. A wider use of ISO standards. To work towards mutual recognition of certification documents, including through the establishment of joint certification agencies.
The modern legal framework for relations between Russia and European Union - was laid by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), establishing the partnership between Russian Federation on one part, and European communities and their member states,
31
on the other part, concluded on June 24, 1994, on Corfu Island (Greece). The Federal Assembly of Russian Federation ratified the agreement in November 19963 . The agreement came into force on December 1, 1997 after been ratified by the European Parliament and by the national Parliaments of EU member states.
This agreement falls into the category of international treaties of Union, concluded jointly with the communities and member states. It was concluded on a period of 10 years, with subsequent annual automatic extension of Agreement, if none of the parties will assert its denunciation. The agreement contains a preamble, 112 articles, 10 annexes, 2 protocols and some joint and unilateral statements and correspondence. .
The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and EU, from 1994, laid a solid foundation for the development of dialogue between the parties on political, economic, cultural issues in the beginning of the 21 century. The agreement from 1994, has a basic character, it contains general provisions on cooperation between EU and Russia. PCA has a framework character, as many of its provisions require further development and specification in the special bilateral agreements on specific issues. Some PCA articles do not only perpetuate the opportunity, but even the necessity of concluding such agreements (for e.g. art. 21-22).
Analysis of the main economic component of Russia-EU cooperation, shows, that to current date, there is a failure in fully implementing the directions of economic cooperation, which were recorded in the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Many PCA provisions are outdated (like for e.g. it does not take into account the recognition by EU of Russia's market economy status) and do not correspond with the reached and modern level of economic cooperation of Russia and EU, as well as the prospects of its further development. In the present, there are expressed quite founded opinions about the necessity of concluding, in addition to the PCA, a special agreement on investment issues with the purpose of enhancing the roles of EU financial bodies in guarantying and financing in Russia the private investments of member states of this organization. However the global financial-economic crisis in 2008 greatly complicated the solving of this problem.
Diplomatic Bulletin 1994. Nr. 15/16. p. 29-59. Federal law from November 25, 1996.
31
During the planned formation of the future Common European Economic Space, the parties will have to prepare a series of new agreements and programmes, which will inevitably go beyond the PCA framework. Modification or replacement of PCA with the new agreement will be needed and in the case of Russia's entry to WTO, which actually will make unnecessary a significant part of its provisions.
The EU enlargement in 2004, revealed the necessity to develop a new legal framework, for an efficient cooperation between Russia and EU.
The development of partnership and cooperation between the EU and Russia at the present stage led right up to the need for establishing a stronger neighbourhood, possessing features of the association. The current stage of cooperation between Russia and the European Union as a period of apparent domination of a pragmatic economic and energy interests, over any statutory legal issues has been created in 2005. In this year was approved the content of the roadmaps for "four common spaces" - a common economic space, common space on freedom, security and justice, common space on external security and common space on research and education, including cultural aspects. Implementation of the so-called road map for the common spaces, adopted during the Moscow Summit in May 2005, remains one of the key features of the cooperation between the EU and Russia. Such a project in the diplomatic and foreign policy practice, neither Russia nor the EU has ever had. This is really a new word in contemporary international relations.
Despite its political nature, all the approved papers in its framework have a legal character. They, on one part, increased the amount of political arrangements that fit into the logic and tradition of the Russian-European cooperation in general, but on the other part, organically linked with the legal sphere of partnership between Russia - the EU and with its main part -the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. There should be mentioned, that this link has a reformative, specification, concretization and gap filling character in respect to the CBC text. Of course, it serves primarily a political role and function, although regulatory and governing also. In any case, the adoption of the current edition of the "road maps" - means moving in the right historical, political, economic and legal direction.
However, these documents confirm the opinion, often sounding in the Russian and the Western scientific community, that currently the European Union and Russian Federation are not the subjects of international relations, which signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. One of the main differences between the "road maps" of PCA and the action plans offered to other countries in the framework of the "European Neighbourhood Policy ", was the lack of requirements for implementing a number of' political conditions "as the basis for moving from " cooperation "to" integration "or the deepening of bilateral contacts. This fact does not mean a complete lack of continuity with earlier approaches to cooperate with each other. Roadmaps stressed that "strategic partnership" between Russia and the EU should be based on "common values" equality and mutual respect of interests. A new model of relations was combining the principles stated by the EU in the "Common Strategy" and by Russia in the "Medium-Term Strategy. " Still the concept of "shared values" in generally was defined through a set of democratic principles and respect for human rights, especially the rights of persons belonging to minorities. Reference to "common values" as the basis of relationships was included in the two road maps: in the common space on external security and common space on freedom, security and justice. In the road map for the common space on freedom, security and justice, it was noted that "cooperation between Russia and the EU in the area of freedom, security and justice has progressed sufficiently and has become a key element of the strategic partnership between both parties". For example, "progress has been
made due to establishing regular consultations on human rights, including minority rights and fundamental freedoms33
Russian experts have argued that "the understanding of the content of the" integration" between the Russian Federation and the European Union has changed. Originally, the process of integration implied a unilateral convergence of the Russian legislative, political, legal and economic models with the European one.
At the moment it is rather a bilateral convergence based on harmonization and exchange of interests." 34 The ultimate goal of political, economic and cultural dialogue in the context of each of the roadmaps is the maximum coordination of positions on both sides of the most significant issues. Collaboration gives a very contradictory picture: some of the provisions (liabilities) are executed, while others - out of date, a number of previously adopted documents quite objectively contain gaps due to the dynamic development of world's politics and economy. Parties as responsible actors could not have noticed this politico-legal and sociological disharmony. This resulted in the aspiration of Russia and the EU, to use other, not only legal instruments and mechanisms to optimize their interactions. Such means, including an ideological sense, become the decisions and arrangements of Russia - EU Summits. The agenda of each of them included the most important bilateral and international issues. Outcomes of the discussions were documented in the decisions and recommendations that will surely provide political commitments. Their specificity lies in the fact that they are, firstly, related to many international legal obligations of Russia, the European Union, EU member states, and secondly, are correlated with the guidelines of PCA 1994, actualizes its provisions, including goal-oriented and , and thirdly entail political and moral responsibility of the parties for execution.
Modern realities highlight the need for new legal instruments for the productive cooperation between Russia and EU. The work is in progress. Topic of PCA 1994 modernization was a major issue of political and diplomatic discussions between Russia and the European Union. It was the subject of discussion at the Hague (2004) and London (2005), Sochi (2006) summits, the Russian Federation - European Union; many experts and scientific communities from European countries are working on analysing this topic.
The leaders of Russia and the EU had reached on EU-Russia summit in London in October 2005, a fundamental political agreement to conclude a new framework agreement, which should replace the current Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Both Russia and the EU have gone through important political, economic and social changes since the signing of the PCA in 1994 and its coming into force in 1997, a new basic agreement is designed to reflect these changes and make a qualitative step forward - to create a more solid legal basis for relations Russia and the EU, to fix a common commitment to the basic principles of interstate relations, as well as bring the interaction to a higher level of strategic partnership. The needs of updating the legal framework for relations between Russia and EU, are really urgent. The current PCA is flexible. Parties upgraded the system of managing the bilateral cooperation without formal changes. They agreed on the concept of common spaces and accepted for execution roadmaps for their construction.
The general international law is quite sufficient to regulate the bilateral relations. It provides the same binding principle, on which is based PCA. The PCA, itself, contains many references to the general international law and to the most important multilateral treaties. Regarding the maintenance of international peace and security it refers to the UN Charter. .
33	"Roadmap" on common space: freedom, security and justice. May 10,. http://www.kremlin.ru/events/articles/2005/05/87950/152814.shtml
34	Lukyanov, Fyodor. The new agreement between Russia and the European Union: Conditions and Opportunities. In Partnership with Russia in Europe. Scenarios for a Future Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Fourth Discussion Circle Meeting Morozovka (near Moscow). September 10-12, 2006
Regarding the trade regimes, the references are made to the norms GATT/WTO. If there is an issue on general values then it refers to the International Bill of Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
But PCA is hopelessly outdated. It does not take into account all the fundamental transformations that Russia and the EU have undergone over the years. It does not reflect the current state of relations between Russia and the EU. Parties have serious and quite founded claims to this document. Its capacity to shape the future is limited. Therefore, the new basic agreement is objectively needed.
There is the possibility to count on the general international law as the single or defining basis of the bilateral relations. But this will impoverish the system of regulation. The specificity will be lost. The process of giving special character to relations, on partnership strategy, will be quite impossible. At least, for a short term period. Therefore, the decision on a new basic agreement and its consistent implementation has fundamental political importance. The political super-task, which is the solution of the problem, is not limited only to the modernization of the legal regulation. It means at the same the choice of the bilateral relations, on the formation of which, further the Russian Federation and the EU will direct their efforts.
The new framework agreement has a lot to give to the potential partners. For Russia, the EU is a natural ally in implementing the policy of modernization and diversification of the national economy. From EU countries comes the main stream of machinery and equipment with which Russian companies make the renewal of fixed capital. Hence comes the largest share of investments in the economy.
The EU also can rely only on Russia in solving a wide range of international, political and economic problems.
The launch time of pragmatic international-legal project, that is the future foundation of EU-Russia, has already come. There are defined its outlines, principles, structures. The main goal is clearly stated- a strategic (in-depth, advanced, integration, etc) partnership. It is also clear that the evolution in the 21 century of the modern world order, tasks that are to be solved by its subjects, do not allow to delay the solution of problems concerning the multi-vector regulation of Russian-European relations. This is - a serious political, legal and ideological challenge that is put forward as a priority for the authorities of Russia and the EU.
Russia and EU started the negotiations on the new framework agreement in July 2008. Until the end of 2009, there were held seven negotiations rounds. The parties agree on (drafting) texts of articles on each section of the future agreement.
35
The main documents, regulating the EU-Russia relations are :
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
*	Partnership and Cooperation Agreement 997
*	Protocol on partnership and cooperation 2004
*	Join Statement on EU Enlargement and EU-Russia relations 2004
*	Protocol on partnership and cooperation 2007
*	Join Statement on EU Enlargement and EU-Russia relations 2007
Road maps on four common spaces
*	Road map on common economic space 2005
*	Road map on common space of freedom, security and justice 2005
*	Road map on common space of external security 2005
*	Road map on common space of science and education, including cultural aspects 2005
Visa regime and readmission agreement
35 www. russianmission. eu (Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the European Union)
*	EU-Russia Agreement of visa facilitation 2006
*	Agreement on readmission between Russia and EU 2006
Sector agreements
Energy
*	EU-Russia energy dialogue. 10th Progress report 2009
*	Memorandum on Early warning mechanism in the energy sector within the framework of EU-Russia energy dialogue 2009
*	Memorandum of understanding and industrial cooperation in the energy sector between the Ministry for fuel and energy of the Russian Federation and European Commission 1999
Steel
*	Agreement between the EU and the Russian Federation on trade in certain steel products 2007
Textile
*	Agreement between the EU and the Russian Federation on trade in certain textile products, 1998
Combating the transnational crime and terrorism
*	Agreement on cooperation between the European Police office and the Russian Federation 2003
*	European Union action plan on common action for the Russian Federation on combating organized crime 2000
Fight against drugs
*	Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal Service of the Russian Federation for Narcotics Traffic control and the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2007
Science and technology
*	Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and government of the Russian Federation 2000
*	Agreement renewing the Agreement on cooperation in science and technology between the European Community and government of the Russian Federation 2003
Non-proliferation, disarmament and export control
*	Joint decision of Council of establishing European Union Cooperation Programme for non-proliferation and Disarmament in the Russian Federation 1999
*	Council decision on implementing joint action 1999/878/cfsp with the purpose of contributing to the European Union Cooperation Programme for non-proliferation and Disarmament in the Russian Federation 2001
Regional policy
*	A Memorandum of Understanding on regional policy cooperation between the European. Commission and the Ministry of Regional Development of the Russian Federation, 2007
3. Republic Belarus
3.1. Cross border cooperation EU-Belarus
For many centuries until the period of separation of Rzeczpolita, the Belarusian lands were developing in the general European tendencies, and they also were subject of processes of state system and monarchy establishment, reformation and religious wars period, the Renaissance, the dissemination of Magdebourg law and guild organizations of artisans, development of printing and education. Most of these processes on the territory of Belarus took place simultaneously with the main part of Europe, although with some delay. Natural and durable relationship with the history of most European states was interrupted by a series of partitions of Rzeczpolita, after which most of the Belarusian territory became part of the Russian Empire and later of the Soviet Union. This "Russian" period of history ended in 1991; after gaining independence the Republic of Belarus, leaving the country to itself to determine the vector of development. However, this choice is not "really" made even today Embarked on the path of self-reliance and independence, the Republic of Belarus faced the need to develop its own ideas about which way to go. The birth of the young Belarusian state forced to comprehend its previous history and to identify new targets and goals.
Starting with 2004, it found itself in the relations of neighbourhood, not with separate European countries -Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, but with the European Union36.
Today, Belarus and EU have not only a common border, but also common economic, political, ecological, energy, demographic and other problems, which need efforts for their solving. While Belarus is still rethinking the new format of relations, EU has a developed approach for building relations with its Eastern and Southern neighbours, which is now concentrated in the European neighbourhood and partnership instrument.
"Action Programmes under the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) guide the European Commission's assistance to Belarus. Up to now, Belarus has received far less assistance than its neighbours because the policies pursued by President Alexander Lukashenka's regime prevent the Commission from offering Belarus full participation in the neighbourhood policy.
The principal objectives of EU cooperation with Belarus are to support the needs of the population, to directly and indirectly support democratization, and to mitigate the effects of the self-isolation of Belarus on its population.
EU Assistance Programmes
To make the people of Belarus more aware of the advantages of EU assistance and the benefits of a closer relationship, the European Commission has issued a "non-paper" with the title: 'What the European Union could bring to Belarus '.
However, the EU still manages to provide some support to Belarusians. Assistance concentrates mainly on the areas of food safety (ENPI Action Programme 2009 ) energy (ENPI Action Programme 2007 ), environment (ENPI Action Programme 2008 ) and higher education (Special Measures 2007 and 2008), but also on civil society and the social domain. The Commission also provides support to the country's independent media.
To prevent drug abuse and fight against drug trafficking in Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, the European Commission funds the BUMAD programme.
The EC also contributes to a project to promote a wider application of international human rights standards in the administration of justice in Belarus.
Dealing with Chernobyl's legacy
http://www.delblr.ec.Europa.eu/page1365.html
The EU concentrates part of its assistance on areas of Belarus which were affected by the Chernobyl disaster.
More precisely, the assistance concentrates on supporting the provision of medical care services and monitoring to the most vulnerable categories of Chernobyl-affected population suffering from thyroid pathologies as well as to develop and implement sustainable social and economic initiatives through community mobilization.
Support to Civil Society
The EU funded project "Support to capacity building and networking of Belarusian NGOs and Local Authorities" maintains a communication and networking platform for EU and Belarusian NGOs and Local Authorities.
Boosting education
In October 2006, the EU launched a major programme to support scholarships for Belarusian students who wish to study abroad. Scholarships are granted to students who have been penalized by the Belarus regime and who have been denied access to local universities because of their political activities during and after the presidential elections of March 2006.
Thanks to these scholarships, Belarusian students who have been expelled will be able to pursue their studies in neighbouring countries, in particular at the European Humanities University (EHU) in Vilnius and at universities in Ukraine. This initiative complements the scholarships offered by several EU Member States. The project is part of the EU's continuing efforts to support Belarusian civil society, particularly Belarusian students and youth.
In April 2008, the European Commission has increased support to Belarusian students studying abroad. A € 1 million allocation will be paid into a designated Trust Fund for the EHU.
Belarusians can also take part in the Erasmus Mundus External Co-operation Window for mobility of students and academic staff.
Supporting the independent media
The European Commission provides continued support to Belarusian independent media.
An ongoing project which started in 2008 includes a new information source for Belarusian journalists. It is the website "EU-Belarus" which contains EU-related information in both Belarusian and Russian languages.
Furthermore, from 2006-2008, the EU has funded a large media project involving TV, radio, the printed press and the internet in order to increase Belarusian people's access to independent sources of news and information. The project makes use of existing media to provide independent, reliable and balanced information on Belarus and the EU. It also organizes training for Belarusian journalists. The actions range from weekly TV broadcasting and live TV specials to daily radio shows on European Radio for Belarus (ERB) and editorial cooperation with independent Belarusian newspapers."37
In the next few years Belarus will have to choose its own deliberate and balanced position concerning this instrument and to submit its understanding about the optimal relations with EU.
Belarus has consistently supporting the idea of transferring political relations of Belarus - the EU into a dialogue and pragmatic partnership, which should be based on realism, pragmatism, common and mutual respect.
In order to promote direct cooperation with the European Union in the spheres of mutual interest between Belarus and the EU are carried out expert consultations in such areas as energy, development of trans-European transport corridors, the interaction between customs
www.Eurobelarus.info/delblr.ec.Europa.eu
services and improvement of conditions for transit, environment, macro-economic cooperation, agriculture, standardization etc.
In order to streamline cross-border cooperation the Council of Ministers of Belarus adopted a resolution "On creation of the Interagency Coordinating Council on cross-border cooperation with neighbouring countries" Nr. 1602 from 18.12.2004, which stated: 3. The main goals of the Council are:
*	Coordination of state authorities activity with the purpose of developing a single position of Belarus regarding the cross border cooperation issues with neighbouring states,;
*	Defining the priorities in the implementation of the key policies of cross border cooperation with the neighbouring countries;
*	Solving a set of problems, arising in the implementation of key polices of cross border cooperation;
*	Considering the projects of goal-oriented programmes, plans, international
38
treaties regarding the cross border cooperation with the neighboring countries.38 The Belarus pays a great attention to the development of interregional cooperation. The cross border cooperation is considered one of the fundamental directions of the country's external policy. There are provided various forms of cooperation: cooperation with foreign countries at the regional and local levels for the operational decisions on border issues, foreign investment to improve the border and transport infrastructure, creation of commercial organizations with foreign investments, development and implementation of regional technical assistance projects financed by international organizations and programmes in economy, spatial planning, entrepreneurship, infrastructure, information, environment, education, culture, tourism and sport.
A special attention, due to Belarus geopolitical position, is paid to the European component of cross border cooperation. There is expected, the encouragement of Euroregions, as forms of cross border cooperation with the purpose of reducing the differences in the levels of socioeconomic development of territories, development of border infrastructure, joint solving of the problems in the areas of nature protection, overcoming imbalances in the population employment matters, cultural and language barriers (especially in the Euroregions "Niemen" and "Lake region") 39
Belarus is involved in European transboundary cooperation and the implementation of the EU concept of "Wider Europe - Neighbourhood: A new approach to relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours" (2003) and the strategy of the European Neighbourhood Policy "(2004).
It participates in three good neighbourhood programmes ("Poland - Belarus - Ukraine ", "Latvia - Lithuania - Belarus", "the Baltic Sea Region "). Most active in this area are Brest, Vitebsk, Grodno and Minsk regions. It is significant that among the goals of these programmes exist and integration objectives. In this way, the program "Poland - Belarus -Ukraine" is aimed to raise the living standards and socio-economic integration of neighbouring regions, the program "The Baltic Sea Region" - to achieve a higher level of integration in the region and the formation of a sustainable and stable region of Europe. They are called sub-priorities, support integrated development of border territories, islands and other territories, the creation of sustainable patterns of communications for the growth of regional integration.40.
; Pravoby.info/docum09/part18/akt18663/htm
See: The main directions of domestic and foreign policy of the Republic of Belarus: approved by the Law of the Republic of Belarus . Nr. 60-3. URL: http://www.pravo.kulichki.com/zak/new03/newc3820.
See.: V.Belitsky.Odinets E. Orlov L. Experience of Belarus' participation in the EU good neighborhood.programmes // Magazine : International law and relations 2008. Nr. 3. C. 77—81
Thus, the European direction of cross-border cooperation should be considered among the integration priorities of Belarus, which may change considerably under the influence of fluctuations in the Russian-Belarusian relations. You can treat it, as an additional tactical resource in cooperation with European organizations and states, on the one part, and Russia -on the other, allowing Belarus to form a situation of alternative choice in terms of diversification of foreign policy. Some Belarusian authors attest indirect "support "for Russia against the European alternative, assuming that the model of inter-regional contacts between Belarus and the EU have been worked out in cooperation with Russia, as well as Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland and can relatively quickly be adapted to the European direction41. The limit for RB to Europe can be considered "democratic" factor, since the conditions of involving the countries (regions) to participate in EU programmes of good neighbourhood suggest dependence on the success achieved in some areas, especially eligibility criteria.
The European Union is the largest donor of technical assistance to the Republic of Belarus through the Technical Assistance to CIS (TACIS). During the years of the TACIS activity in Belarus, there were implemented 320 projects worth about 204 million Euro. As a result of reforming the EU system of technical assistance from January 1, 2007 the TACIS Programme was replaced by European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), which applies to Belarus.
During the 2004-2006, there was planned to allocate 23 million Euro for the implementation of projects, aimed to strengthen the cross border cooperation between the enlarged EU and its "new neighbour" - Belarus within the framework of three programmes: "INTERREG III A Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus (Priority South) ", " Poland-Belarus-Ukraine INTERREG III A / TACIS CBC "and" The Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B ". However, the participation of RB in these projects faced a number of serious problems, but their number is still insignificant. The most serious obstacles represent excessive centralization of decisionmaking of the Belorussian part. As a result, in recent times have been recorded only a few dozens of applications for the program "INTERREG III A Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus" and "Poland-Belarus-Ukraine INTERREG III A / TACIS CBC ".
At the same time, the excessive length of procedures for the approval of applications by the Belarusian part in some cases leads to the fact that potential foreign partners (which in general do not have the procedural problems) prefer to stay within the established time frame and to obtain financing, at least for themselves, as their Belarusian colleagues remain "with their own interests." At this moment, approximately out of the 40 of real possible projects under the above mentioned programmes, there are implemented only 15. In September, 2005, the Belarusian partners participated only in 20 out of 101 approved projects under the 1-7 contests of the Neighbourhood Programme" The Baltic Sea Region INTERREG III B "whereas in January 2006 there were approved 120 projects with the participation of countries from all the regions.42
During the period 2004-2006, out of the planned 23 million Euro, Belarus used only 1,034,282 Euro, or 4.5%.43
According to the National Indicative Programme for Belarus in the period 2007- 2010, within the framework of ENPI, EU had provided technical assistance on two priorities: the social and economic development, democratic development and good governance. The budget for
See.: Alekseeva T, Gordeychik A, Dostanko E. Cooperation of Belarus with the leading European organizations in the late 90's // Belarusian magazine : International law and relations. 2000m # 2. URL: http://www.evolutio.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=
: http://www.bsrinterreg.net/programm/_downloads/2005.09.14.1_7_round_projects.zip
A. Kruglashov, Y.Kotskaya. Belarus - Really Belarus needs such a regional policy ? Modern Europe Nr,2010 p..38
Belarus was established in the amount of EUR 5 million annually, but starting with 2009, has been increased twice - up to 10 million Euro.
Projects under the programmes, in which participate Belarus, are selected through an open or closed tender, depending on the topic. For example, information about the recipients of grants for projects supporting democracy - is not disclosed. The main recipients of technical assistance among government agencies are the Minister of Nature Resources and Environmental Protection, Ministry of Internal Affairs, State Border and State Customs Committee, and the Chernobyl Committee, Belarus Weather Centre and regional executive committees. In the projects also, participate the Belarusian non-governmental organizations, universities, research institutions
In the area of combating illegal migration for the project MIGRABEL, for Belarusian branch of the International Organization for Migration there has been allocated 700,000 Euro. The project aims to improve protection of Belarusian passports and visas from counterfeit, bring them into conformity with international safety standards, including biometrics.
Much attention is paid to the programmes of cross-border cooperation: "the Baltic Sea Region ", Poland - Belarus - Ukraine, Latvia - Lithuania - Belarus. All together, the budget for the Belarusian participants of these programmes for the period until 2013 amounts to 250.546 million Euro. (See Appendix Nr. 1)
Belarus is objectively interested in the development of the entire range of cross-border cooperation - in the cultural, economic, education and other spheres at the international, national, regional and local level in order to simplify the visa regime, develop the border, transport, telecommunication, nature protection, energy infrastructure, combat illegal migration and combat international crime.
Cross-border and transboundary cooperation could greatly contribute to the revival of depressed regions of Belarus, which include small towns, where are situated the unstable working industrial production enterprises, as well as a significant part of rural settlements, the economy of which make up unprofitable and non-profit agricultural enterprises, as well as to the mitigation of the regional inequalities and many socio-economic disparities between regions and between regions and the centre.44
3.2. Practical implementation of cross border cooperation
EU and Belarus from May 2004, have a common border, with a length of 1213 km, being both objectively interested in that it will not become an obstacle for the economic cooperation, trade development, socio-cultural exchanges and cooperation. In this context, special importance have Euroregions as transfrontier socio-economic unions of integrated territories of the neighbouring countries.
Border territories of Belarus are part of some Euroregions, together with the neighbouring countries from the EU.
1. Agreement on the creating the Euroregion "Niemen" was signed on June 6, 1997 by Grodno Oblast (Belarus), Suwalki Voivodeship (Poland), Alytus and Marijampole counties (Lithuania), while at the same time was approved its Charter.
Euroregion "Niemen" integrated the Belarus - Grodno region with the Polish part in 1998 -Podlaskie Voivodeship, from the Lithuanian part with - Marijampole, Alytus and Vilnius district, from the Russian part since 2002 with Chernyakhovsky, Krasnoznamensk, Ozersky, Gusev and Nesterovskiy areas Kaliningrad region. The area of the Euroregion is 69.8 thousand square kilometers The population of the Euroregion - 3,6 million. Cities of Euroregion: Grodno, Lida (Belarus), Suwalki, Lomza, Augustow (Poland), Vilnius,
Economics and society in Belarus: Imbalances and prospects of development. National Human Development Report 2004-2005
Alytus, Marijampole (Lithuania), Ozersk, Nesterov (Russia).
As the Euroregion includes territories of four states, a great importance for the region has the development of transport and telecommunications systems, as well as development of tourism	infrastructure	and	recreation,	roadside	service.
In the cities of Grodno and Lida operates a free economic zone "Grodno-invest". Implemented project (with participation of Belarus):
*	Annual exhibition of Euroregion "Niemen"
The purpose of the exhibition is the activation of cooperation between economic entities of Belarus, Poland, Lithuania, Russia; contracts; demonstration and sale of consumer goods.
-	Info region Niemen (2001-2002), under which, Grodno hosted a forum of NGOs from Euroregion "Niemen ", there was published an electronic newsletter "Niemen-Info", there was created a database of Euroregion organizations;
-	PoLiBelKa (2003, 2006) - International Youth School with the participation NGO activists from the border areas of Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and the Kaliningrad region of Russia (2003, 2006).
*	Project under the Good Neighbourhood Programme "Poland-Belarus-Ukraine " Bio-mechanical research and development of methods to improve Children movement system from Podlasie and Grodno
*	Project "Unknown Europe - the development of tourism infrastructure of the Polish-Belarusian border area in the district of Augustow Canal and the Niemen. Implemented in 2008-2010. Budget: 740,000 Euro.
Additionally, through funding, received from the Small Projects Fund, managed by the Association Euroregion Niemen (Poland) were implemented several cross-border mini-projects with participation of Belarusian partners, including::
*	"Green Lungs of Europe": a series of seminars dedicated to the issues of inventory of monuments of historical and cultural heritage in the border areas of Belarus, Poland and Ukraine (2007);
*	publishing the multilingual version of the poem N. Gusovskogo "Song about Bison", Belarusian-Polish heathenish books "Myths and Legends: From the Niemen to the Bug" and "Traditional cuisine Bialystok and Grodno, and other (2007); (2007);
*	"Searching for the intersection of cultures": youth expedition to the local history of Podlasie and Grodno (2008-2009).
2. Cross-border association "Euroregion Bug" (ERB) was founded in September 1995. In May 1998, part of its full members included Brest region of Belarus and Biala Podlaska Voivodeship of Poland. After the implementation of administrative reform in Poland, members of the Transboundary Association Euroregion "Bug" became: the Brest region of Belarus, Liublinskoe province of the Republic of Poland and the Volyn region of Ukraine. Starting from June 1996, Euroregion "Bug" is a member of the Association of European Border Regions. The area of the Euro-region - about 80 thousand square km. Euroregion population is 5 million.
Largest city: Brest, Baranovichi, Pinsk (Belarus), Lublin, Biala Podlaska (Poland), Lutsk, Kovel (Ukraine). The main advantage of the Euroregion "Bug" is a favorable geographical position. Through its territory pass the most important communications which links the countries of Western Europe, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states.
Here are found the passenger and good cross border passages; the transportation services sector is very developed.
On the territory of Brest region is located the free economic zone "Brest", where about 100 enterprises are registered, including those with foreign capital participation. Implemented projects under international programmes:
*	Expanding the network of small inter-state border passages ;
*	Developing the infrastructure of international border passages of European importance ("Warsaw Bridge," "Kozlovichi");
*	TRIC (transfrontier information and contacts Brest - Biala Podlaska);
*	TRIC-Region (creation at local government level of an interconnected -regional spatial planning in the border area from Poland and Belarus);
*	Developing Brest border information center;
*	International exhibition "Brest. Commonwealth ";
*	Cooperation in the sphere of quality control of the border water basin Western Bug;
*	Organization of joint areas ("Pribuzhskoje Polesie) and their development based on eco-tourism;
*	Improving public participation in preventing and eliminating environmental disasters in the Euroregion "Bug";
*	Unified information system on interaction of population and authorities in transboundary region of Brest - Lublin;
*	"Three Polessyes" - a joint strategy for protection and ecological use of the natural heritage of the Polish-Belarusian-Ukrainian border;
*	International conference "Prospects of development of Belarusian-Polish-Ukrainian transboundary cooperation within the Euroregion" under the project "Assistance of transboundary cooperation within the framework of Euroregions"
*	Project "Closer to each other. Three Cultures, One Europe - cooperation between cultural institutions, NGOs and animators
Partners: Lviv (Ukraine), Brest (Belarus), Lublin (Poland), total amount of project: 172442 €. Project goal: increase the possibility of institutional cooperation in the sphere of culture between the cities of Brest, Lublin and Lviv. Completion period: October 2010 -September 2011
*	From January 2011 there will start the implementation of the project "Tourist Information System in border towns - Lutsk (Ukraine), Brest (Belarus), Lublin (Poland)
Partners: Lublin, Brest, historical and cultural reserve "Old Lutsk", Brest State University, Centre for European cross-border initiatives (Lublin). Project amount: 701 440 € for the project purpose: increasing tourism potential of cities Lutsk, Lublin and Brest. Completion period: January 2011 - June 2012 3. Euroregion Country of Lakes "
On September 4, 1998 in Braslav was signed the regulation on the Council on transboundary cooperation in border areas of three states. On January 29, 1999 in the town of Ignalina (Lithuania), Council received the status of the Euroregion; there were defined the structure, areas of cooperation, was signed the application for membership for the Association of the European border regions. Part of the Euroregion are: Braslavsky Verkhnedvinsk, Miorsky, Pastavy and Glubokskiy areas (Belarus); Daugavpils, Kraslava, Preilu and Rezekne districts, including the city of Daugavpils and Rezekne (Latvia), Zarasai, Ignalina, Utena and Shvenchensky areas, including the city of Visaginas ( Lithuania). The area of the Euro-region - 21,9 thousand square km. The population of Euroregion - 595,000 people. Euroregion cities:
Braslau, put (Belarus), Daugavpils, Rezekne (Latvia), Visaginas, Ignalina (Lithuania). Euroregion Country of Lakes "is a member of the Association of European Border Regions.
Implemented projects:
*	first project of transboundary cooperation, implemented within the framework of the program the EU Phare CREDO - "Establishing the Latvian-Belarusian information center."
*	Latvian office of the Directorate, in collaboration with Zarasai Business Information Centre from October 2002 until September 2003, implemented the project "Promoting Small and medium-sized businesses on the territory of Euroregion 'Country of lakes" through actions on transboundary cooperation. "
*	Project "Culinary heritage as a method of developing a network of regional tourism in the context of Euroregion "Country of Lakes" was approved by the Interreg IIIA Programme and implemented from May 2005 until June 2006
*	First million project of Euroregion "Country of Lakes "-" Development of a network cycle routes in the Baltic Country of Lakes", was approved by the programme Interreg IIIA and TACIS. Project implementation period - from November 2005 until October 2007 in Latvia and Lithuania, and until May 2008 - on the territory of Belarus
4. Belarusian-Polish Euroregion "Belovezhskaya Puscha" was founded on May 22, 2002 in Haynuvka (Republic of Poland). In the same year, it was registered in the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Belarus and Poland. In the same year the Euroregion "Belovezhskaya Puscha "integrated the Belarusian part - Kamenetsky, Pruzhanskij, Svislochsky areas with the Polish - Gaynovsky county. The area of the Euroregion - 7,5 thousand square km. Euroregion population - 174,700 people. Cities of Euroregion: Pruzhany, Kamenetz (Belarus), Hajnowka, Kleschel (Poland). The Euroregion "Belovezhskaya Puscha " expresses the aspiration of a friendly and mutual beneficial transboundary cooperation on the territories of Belarus and Poland, where is situated a unique complex of relict forests Belovezhskaya Puscha.
Euroregion performs the function of attracting financing from the European funds for solving the regional problems, thus increasing the chances of local authorities in fulfilling different regional tasks..
Belovezhskaya Puscha is an unique, a common European value, a single ecological organism and monument, which hat to be the object of common concern.
From 2003, the Euroregion representatives work in the Belarus-Poland Intergovernmental coordination Commission on the transboundary cooperation.
Implemented projects:
*	Opening of the tourism passage "Pererov -Beloveja"
*	project under UNDP regional program "Environmentally Sustainable Development in Belovezhskaya Puscha Region: Combining conservation and sustainable development";
*	TACIS project "Strengthening transboundary cooperation for regional development of the area Belovezhskaya Puscha, based on the principles of participation and sustainability." The main objective of the project -environmental education and development of ecological and agricultural tourism;
*	project "Development of transboundary tourism in the region of the Belovezhskaya Puscha - Good Neighborhood Programme Poland-Belarus-Ukraine INTERREG III A / TACIS CBC 2004-2006. The aim of the project was to develop the transboundary tourist routes , training of hotel personnel, marketing of ecotourism.
*	project "Unified information system of interaction between population and authorities in transboundary region of Brest - Lublin" planned for 14 months and with a budget of 122.2 thousand Euro. Implemented in 2008 -2009.
* since March 2010 on the territory of the frontier post "Tomashovka" , by Brest Border Force (Brest region, village. Tomashovka) as been started the BOMBEL-3 project on the site on the Belarusian-Polish border.
The project is implemented by the State Border Committee, State Customs Committee of and the European Union and aims to improve the management system of border guards on the Belarusian-Polish state border. The EU has allocated to implement the third phase of the programme BOMBEL 7 million Euro, for creating a high-speed fiber optic data network. In April 2008, there was signed a technical protocol between the Ministry of Belarus and the Ministry of Environment of Lithuania on cooperation in monitoring and exchange of information on the status of transboundary waters.
In September 2009, was signed an intergovernmental agreement "On Cooperation in the sphere of environmental protection" between the Belarus and Poland. It also provides the joint monitoring of transboundary waters and the exchange of data.
3.3. Conclusions
Although the RB participation in cross border cooperation projects faced some serious problems, at this moment there are still few. The most serious obstacles include poor quality of Belarusian partners applications, which do not comply with established requirements (including those due to technical difficulties associated with their preparation and execution), the difference between the interests of potential partners in neighbouring states, complex, bureaucratic and time-consuming procedure for project approval from the Belarusian part ( need to conform to several regulations (Decree of the President on the international technical assistance and Instruction on technical assistance of the Council of Ministers). In addition, all projects must be endorsed by the relevant ministries and agencies, and should get the approval of a special committee of the Council of Ministers on international technical assistance (in the absence of remarks), after which the Prime Minister makes the final decision. Many joint projects, despite their successful implementation, cover only a small part of the problems, being unable to involve all the potential interested institutions and civil organizations. This situation can be explained by the insufficient training of the Belarusian organizations in the project development (that is lack of information about the opportunities of finding a potential partners in EU, insufficient knowledge in the area of project development, possibility of receiving grants or financing, new procedures of state registration, and also the insufficient experience in operational and financial project management). All these problems impede the participation of local Belarus authorities and organizations in the international technical support programmes, aimed to support the institutional cooperation between Europe and Belarus.
Principles of a developed system of the local self-governing and providing financial basis are found in two important international documents on the cross border cooperation - Madrid Conference 45 and Charter of Local Self-Government46; the border regions of Belarus are deprived of the necessary rights and opportunities, corresponding to these documents, for the efficient development of cross border cooperation.
It makes sense to talk about the need for large-scale programme of Europeanization, designed to synchronize Belarus with the European processes. Such a program should not only help eliminate the lack of knowledge about the life of modern Europe, but also allow Belarusian citizens to consider this life as their own, aware of itself as an organic and meaningful part of this "unity in diversity." Active and massive study of the European Union in schools, additional education programmes for youth and adults should be the initial phase
45	European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities. Concluded in Madrid on 21.05.1980. conventions.col.int(CETS 106)
46	European Charter for local self-government .conventions.col.int(CETS 122)
of this path. According to a study conducted in the first half of 2010 by the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies together with axiometrics laboratory Novak revealed a rather low level of understanding of the institutional linkages of Belarus and the European Union. While half of respondents believe that Belarus has the right to join the European Union, approximately 20.3% of respondents answered yes to question whether the Belarus is member of the Council of Europe. Almost half (46.9%) of respondents believe that Belarus participates in the European Neighbourhood Policy, 15% - that is not involved. There is a large percentage of those who didn't answer to these questions - respectively 38.9 and 39.3%. Interestingly, that the wrong answers to questions often were given by a more "developed" and informed population. Among young people 23.0% are convinced that Belarus is a member of the Council of Europe, among those with higher education - 21.2% and among who have access to alternative information sources about the EU - 22.2%. Among those who believe in the participation of Belarus in the European Neighbourhood Policy, 58.4% are Minsk dwellers, 58.1% - persons with higher education, 42.1% young people up to 24 years and 54% have access to alternative sources of information.
About the EU-Eastern Partnership (EP) knows only 21% of the questioned, while 78% does not know anything about this program. At the same time, 30% of respondents believe that Belarus participates in this program, 13% - that does not participate, 56.4% did not answer to the question. It is significant that, despite the generally favourable attitude of official organ to the programme, among those for whom the source of information is solely state-owned media heard about the EP only 13.1% of respondents, among those who receive information about the EU from alternative sources - 31.9% of respondents. Among those who heard about the programme EP, dominate the respondents with higher education (40.4%), Minsk dwellers (26.8%) and persons of middle age (25.8%).
Awareness among youth about the EP programme (14.0%) is on the same level with that of the pensioners (14.1%). Among those who have access to alternative sources of information, the percentage of those who heard about the EP program, is somewhat higher than the sample, but represents the smallest part of respondents (31.6%). Confident people in the fact that Belarus is involved in the EP, again are higher among persons with higher education (46.5%), residents of Minsk and large cities (33.8 and 35.5% respectively), as well as those who have access to alternative information about the EU (41.8%) . Youth and pensioners once again showed approximately the same level of awareness on the participation of Belarus in the EP (26.1 and 25.7% respectively).47 The challenges faced by Belarusian society in this area are more complicated than the "European agenda" because the solutions are to be provided almost simultaneously within a relatively short period of time. In order to cope with the tasks of "desovietization", formation of the modern Belarusian nation and fitting it into the context of European development processes, there is necessary to maximize the mobilization of available, as well as search and reproduction of the scarce resources of all kinds.
Thus, the Centre of the European transformation of the proposals on priorities of the National Indicative Programme 2012-2013 for Belarus and the roles of civil society in its development	draws	attention	to	the	following:
"While noting and supporting the positive changes during the formation of policies and programmes of the EU towards Belarus, we should mention the two most pressing problems which restrain the efficient and considered relationship:
1. Lack of participation of the Belarusian part into the planning of programmes and strategies aimed for Belarus from the EU part as a whole and from the individual European countries.
SA#01/2010RU www.belinstitute.eu
2. Weakness (low representation) of the Belarusian civil society as an equal partner in the Euro-Belarusian dialogue and collaboration. Civil society and under the new conditions remains a consistent supporter of the European vector of development and the main force of democratic changes in Belarus. But today, most organizations and civil society structures are hostage of their long unstable situation. While planning its activities, they are largely guided by those objectives and directions that are most actively financed by international foundations and organizations. To fully participate as partners in the dialogue with their goals and interests, civil society in Belarus has neither enough comfortable circumstances of resources for independent action (material and technical basis, the existence and stability of long-term action programmes, independence of specific actions from funding), nor adequate mechanism for inclusion in the partnership dialogue. Relevant examples of such a mechanism (for example, the Forum of civil society) represent a significant step in solving this problem, but they can be evaluated so far only as potential".48
48 EUROBELARUS/ Centre of the European transformation. Proposals on EU-Belarus cooperation priorities under the National Indicative Programme and the role of civil society in its development May2010r.
4. Ukraine
4.1. Cross border cooperation EU-Ukraine
Ukraine has developed and historically established relations with a number of European countries, especially with Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, with which it has common border. Interaction took place also in those times, when the Russian empire became "Soviet power". But the most powerful impulse to cooperation was received after the restoration of Ukrainian statehood in 1991. A complex combination of various forms of cross-border cooperation emerged and began to develop. Particularly intense they were with Poland and Hungary. Ukraine became an active participant in Euroregions model.
Ukraine is situated in the heart of Europe, it has a number of strategic characteristics, and among them being the developed transit potential. Across the country is an enormous amount of transport and communications, arteries from Asia to Europe, and in the opposite direction. Ukraine has always been the state, very powerfully built into the system of parallel coordinates West - East.
The EU is seeking an increasingly close relationship with Ukraine, going beyond mere bilateral cooperation, to gradual economic integration and a deepening of political cooperation.
Ukraine is a priority partner country within the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP). The Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA) which came into force in 1998 and provides a comprehensive and ambitious framework for cooperation between the EU and Ukraine, in all key areas of reform.
At the Paris Summit in September 2008 an agreement was reached to start negotiations on an EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which is to be the successor agreement to the PCA. Several negotiating Rounds have since been organized, alternately in Brussels and Kiev. In November 2009, the Cooperation Council adopted the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda.
The document includes the key priorities for reforms, which Ukraine has to implement in the coming years, in order to fully benefit from the activation of cooperation and enhancement of access to the markets, which are stipulated in the new Association Agreement.
This Agenda replaces the former Action Plan, and will prepare for and facilitate the come into force of the new Agreement. For 2010, a list of priorities for action was jointly agreed by Ukraine and the EU.
The Association Agreement will significantly deepen Ukraine's political association and economic integration with the EU. As Ukraine became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in May 2008, negotiations on the establishment of a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) could be launched, as an integral part of the Association Agreement. Negotiations for this DCFTA continue in 2010.49
Today there are developed several levels of cross-border cooperation. First and foremost, we should note the conceptual level, developed by bordering states Ukraine - Poland, Ukraine - Hungary, Ukraine - Slovakia. To a lesser extent Ukraine - Romania, Ukraine - Bulgaria. It is necessary to expand the positive experience of cross-border cooperation with these states on the relations with Black Sea countries such as Georgia and Turkey, and Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Apparently, in this regard in Ukraine, it is important to raise the issue of expanding the current transboundary concept throughout the country, turning it into a trans-communication system that would connect the eastern and western, northern and southern markets on the Eurasian geo-economic space.
Info center ENPI - Ukraine web page: http://www.enpi-info.eu/countryeast.php?country
Ukrainian transboundary cooperation develops within the border regions, which form a connection between two or more structural units. In this case as an example can be mentioned, the interaction between the Polish voivodeships and Ukrainian regions, which signed a partnership agreement.
It's quite an efficient form, providing not only economic and financial cooperation, but also cultural, scientific and technical exchange of teachers, students, the creation of various summer schools, camps, implementation of joint projects aimed to form mutual understanding between the people living in border regions. Within the partnership, efficiently interact, on one part, Volyn and Lviv region of Ukraine, on the other - Polish territories with centers in Lublin, Krakow and Helme. Chernivtsi region cooperates with the relevant Romanian region, and also has some relations with Moldova (the further development, unfortunately, is interrupted by the unresolved issue of Transnistria).An obstacle in the relations with the Bulgarian regional bordering authorities, is the weak level of communication channels functioning, the absence of a developed transport market in Black Sea area.
Development of cross-border cooperation between Ukraine reveals also the following components, working at the moment:
*	a bipolar transboundary corridors in the sub-regions, which links different groups of administrative regions. Region administrations sign the agreement on partnership and cooperate in the financial and economic, cultural, scientific and technical areas.
*	creation of a partnership network between the border cities, which establish a bipolar connections. Today, for example, actively is forming a system of partnerships between Ukrainian and Polish cities, registering a high efficiency.
*	the development of systems that serve the border checkpoints and which allow to accelerate the passage of goods and people across the border. Here, Ukraine also has a wide experience. For example, there was signed an agreement with Poland about a joint examination of goods and people pass.
Currently, many aspects of cross-border cooperation requires a revision, since Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union and therefore should naturally follow the EU legislative framework in force. This fact, to some extent complicates the task of the cross border cooperation development.
Under the conditions of deepening international specialization, Ukraine develops bilateral relations with most countries. The most efficiently it occurs within the cross border cooperation. By definition - this is a specific sphere of international activity, which aims to establish and intensify economic, social, technical and scientific, cultural and other relations between the territories.
Transboundary cooperation, as a factor in the integration process and a premise for innovative development, aims to achieve maximum convergence of socio-economic development of regions that is the complete elimination of any restriction with respect to the movement of goods, works and services, labour, capital and technologies across the border.
Under current conditions of the world economy, there is a clear trend: globalization processes cover all areas of public life. But under the influence of the global economic crisis, globalization trends have a positive result mainly at the regional level, within the cross-border cooperation sphere.
One reason for the emergence of direct cross-border linkages between domestic entities is that at the state level, it is difficult independently, quickly and effectively solving, especially in border regions, tasks that are in the area of their responsibility and represent the necessary condition for economic development of the territories divided by the border. Therefore, Ukraine's participation in cross-border cooperation is the basis for expanding mutually
beneficial trade and economic cooperation at the regional level, that is cross-border cooperation can solve local problems locally, but also contributes to international integration at the state level.
According to the Additional Protocols, adopted by the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation, local authorities have the right to sign international agreements strictly within the framework of transboundary cooperation. The document also stresses that cooperation takes place within national legislation. This is a limiting factor in the development and functioning of the Euroregions in Ukraine, which impedes the adoption of regional projects for border areas and people living here. The fact is that, these issues are the responsibility of central government. But one fact is clear: nobody knows better the regional problems than the local government does and nobody will deal with them closely. Euroregions precisely are created to unite the local authorities to find solutions, aimed to improve the living standards of population from border areas.
There is an urgent need for the redistribution of authority between central and regional authorities and the transfer to the latter the right to decide on their own the issues of cross-border cooperation.
The Law of Ukraine "On the cross-border cooperation" from July 22, 200450 defined the legal, economic and organizational principles of cross-border cooperation. Cross-border cooperation is defined in law as a sequence of actions aimed to establish and intensify economic, social, scientific, technical, environmental, cultural and other relations between territorial communities and their representative bodies, local executive authorities of Ukraine and similar public institutions of other states.
The law contains the concept of the Euroregion, which is defined as the organizational form of cooperation of administrative-territorial units of the European states, which is applied in compliance with the multilateral agreements on transboundary cooperation. In accordance with the law, subjects of cross-border cooperation territorial communities, their representative bodies, local executive authorities of Ukraine, which collaborate with the communities and relevant authorities of other states within their jurisdiction, are established by the applicable laws and agreements on border cooperation.
In accordance with the Law, the purpose of cross-border cooperation should be the development of socio-economic, scientific, technical, environmental, cultural and other relations between the actors and participants in cross-border cooperation, based on the following principles:
*	Respect for national sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders;
*	Taking into consideration government entities and the rights of participants of cross-border cooperation while concluding agreements on border cooperation;
*	Coordinated removal of political, economic, legal, administrative and other obstacles while establishing mutual cooperation.
State policy in cross-border cooperation is based on principles of:
*	legality;
*	clear distribution of tasks, powers and responsibilities between the subjects of cross-border cooperation in Ukraine;
*	coordination of state, regional and local interests;
*	ensuring equal opportunities for the regions of Ukraine regarding cooperation in the framework of cross-border cooperation;
' Gazette of Verkhovna Rada,2004 Nr.45,p. 499
www.kmu.gov.ua The Concept approved by the cabinet of ministers of Ukraine.15.08.2010.Nr.1838-p
*	distribution of responsibilities and powers between central and local executive authorities in order to overcome most effectively, the challenges of cross-border cooperation;
*	establishing effective mechanisms to ensure conditions for the cross borders cooperation.
Ukraine has a considerable amount of border territories: land borders with 7 countries, 4 of which are EU members. Their general length is over 5,6 thousand km, including with Russia - 1955 km, Moldova - 1202 km, Belarus - 1,084 km, Romania - 608 km, Poland - 542 km, Hungary - 135 km, Slovakia - 98 km.51
Depending on the priorities of the legal system, the transboundary cooperation can take place within permanent or policy structures. The most widespread form of transfrontier cooperation is considered the Euroregion. Euroregion is one of the organizational forms of transboundary relations, where within the limits of its competence and with the consent of central state bodies, on the ground of special extended powers in international cooperation, the local authorities of bordering regions have the possibility to develop special complex programme on economic, cultural and humanitarian cooperation, implement specific transboundary economic projects, solving problems of employment, infrastructure and ecology52. The formation of Euroregions also provides the possibility to create organizational structure and financing system in the form of international regional associations, unions, consortiums, etc., under the current legislation of Ukraine.
In Ukraine, currently there are a number of Euroregions with the participation of EU countries:
1.	Carpathian Euroregion 1993, Hungary, Ukraine (Lviv, Transcarpathian, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi Oblast), Poland, Slovakia, Romania
2.	Euroregion Bug 1995, Poland, Ukraine (Volyn region)Belarus
3.	Lower Danube Euroregion 1998, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine (Odessa region),
4.	Upper Prut Euroregion 2000, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine (Chernivtsi, Ivano-Frankivsk region)
5.	Black Sea Euroregion, 2007, Ukraine, Russia, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
There is discussed the issue on developing the project Euroregion "Sian "with the participation of the Lviv region of Ukraine and the Sub-Carpathian Voivodeship of Poland.
While the vast majority of regions of Ukraine have borderline location, only about 30% of the state territories are involved to cross-border activities.
Despite the significant prospects for Ukraine in the development of tansboundary cooperation with neighbouring countries, the activities of Euroregions in which participates the country, does not meet fully their needs and does not use all the possibilities. A good example of the existing impediments to implementation intentions in cross-border cooperation is the organization of the Euroregion "Upper Prut". The idea to create a Euroregion "Upper Prut" was proposed by the Romanian part while signing the Ukrainian-Romanian basic political treaty in 1997. It should be noted that from the outset appeared different approaches of the parties in understanding the goals of the created Euroregion. Ukrainian part insisted on the creation of an ecologic Euroregion as a new system of transboundary cooperation, which will ensure the continuous development and anthropogenic and ecological security in the region. The Romanian considered as a top priority to protect the interests of the Romanian minority in
Dergacheva V. Cross border cooperation as a basic component of international scientific and technical cooperation. Economic bulletin HTyy"KnI" y^K 005.336
; European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities. Concluded in Madrid on 21.05.1980 35 p.
the Chernivtsi region, to ensure their national and cultural needs. In the draft's Charter of Euroregion, suggestions were made by Ukrainian and Romanian parts. The next obstacle was the problem of delegating powers between the central and regional authority. The Romanian part considered that the country Council has enough power to constitute the region. Ukrainian and Moldovan parts had taken into account the constitution of the Euroregion by the central authorities and its inclusion in different interstate and intergovernmental documents. Therefore, they believed that the Euroregion is not only a form for regional telecommunication channels, but also as part of the interstate transboundary cooperation. They persistently implemented the procedure of concordance of the draft texts of Charter documents with the central governments and strive to receive power from their governments to sign such documents. As a result when the signing date was set, the Ukrainian and Moldovan parts got permission from their governments, but the Romanian part was unable to sign the charter documents. Romania has changed in legislation according to which the County Council could not act without the permission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In the second half of March 1999 the overall activity of the representatives of Romania, Ukraine and Moldova on the Protocol on creating the Euroregion and its charter was nearly complete. After that, it was planned to agree on a draft of the Charter of the Euroregion and sign the documents during the visit of President of Romania and Moldova to Ukraine. However, the Department of local government administration under the Government of Romania required for analysis the documents of Euroregion "Upper Prut". It made a few formal remarks, including an unfinished administrative reform in Moldova. Thus, the signing of the documents had been postponed. On September 22, 2000 in Botosani, was signed an agreement on the creation of the Euroregion "Upper Prut". On November 30, 2000 were adopted the Charter and constitution documents.
Prospects of development of Euroregions in Ukraine consist in deepening the already existing transboundary linkages and creating new ones on all the border of the country.
Also, cross-border cooperation can be used as an additional opportunity of Ukraine's European integration. The transboundary cooperation can create a broad network of persistent connections of Ukrainian regions with the regions of the EU, which in turn will increase the possibilities of Ukraine inclusion in the pan-European integration processes.
The European Commission in January 2009 adopted the decision on financing programmes of cross-border cooperation between Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Ukraine on 2007-2013, within the European Neighborhood and Partnership instrument (CBC ENPI), which is part of the European Neighborhood Policy. The first call for proposals for the programme was announced in spring 2009. The organizations which meet the requirements from the eligible regions have the right to submit projects for financing.
Priorities of the above programme are to promote economic and social development and to support cooperation among nations.
Regions of Ukraine, which meet the requirements of this new funding program - are the regions bordering with Hungary, Slovakia and Romania and which are defined in the EU strategy paper on CBC ENPI, and namely, Transcarpathian and Ivano-Frankivsk region and Chernivtsi region as neighboring regions. In the project can participate local, regional and national organizations, parastatal institutions, such as association and sponsors of regional development, agencies for innovation and development, scientific research institutes and universities, regional and local enterprises associations (such as chambers of commerce, unions) ; professional organizations, regional and local authorities and NGOs in their respective regions.
The legal foundations of Ukraine-EU dialogue on regional development of cross boundary cooperation are based on Article 70 of the Agreement on Partnership and chapters: 2.2 "economic and social reforms and development" and 2.6 "People to people" from the
Action Plan. The further need for specifying the directions in the development of regional and cross-border cooperation between Ukraine and the EU, has resulted in signing on the 22 July 2009 the Memorandum of Understanding to establish a dialogue on regional policy and regional cooperation, signed by the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction of Ukraine and the European Commission. In particular in section 2 of the Memorandum there is stated that:
"Goals of the dialogue are:
*	to cooperate and exchange information on appropriate policies on promoting economic growth, competitiveness, employment, quality of life, and achieve a better territorial balance;
*	to share information on experiences in the creation and implementation of regional policies with special emphasis on ways to assist the development of disadvantaged areas in order to strengthen border cooperation and socioeconomic development of border regions and to assist cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation as an important instrument for sustainable spatial development;
*	to share views and practices on the forms of multilateral governance and the principles of partnership in regional policy, including principles of good governance at the regional and local level;
*	to share experiences in developing and implementing regional strategies, including multi-year programmes;
*	to support and facilitate cooperation between Ukrainian regions and regions in the EU, as well as between local, regional and national representatives;
*	to share experiences in building institutional capacity of regional and local government, local government associations and institutions for regional development;
*	to organize seminars, workshops and meetings at all the levels through the coordination of joint activities aimed to share the European experience in developing and implementing regional policy;
*	to discuss any other topics of mutual interest in regional policy. "
For the implementation of this document, there was developed by the parties the Action programme for memorandum implementation, which sets out a list of activities for the period until 2011.
An important element of coordination between Ukraine and the EU in ensuring regional policy is the involvement of Ukrainian regions on a regular basis in the activities of European regional organizations, in particular, the Assembly of European Regions, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, Conference of European regional legislative assemblies, the Association of European Border Regions, Conference of Peripheral maritime regions.
Practical cooperation between Ukraine and the EU in regional policy is currently focused on the following areas:
*	Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding to create a dialogue on regional policy between the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction of Ukraine and the European Commission as well as the Action Programme for its implementation in 2009-2011;
*	Creating a mechanism for dialogue between representatives of local and regional authorities of Ukraine and the EU within the framework of the Committee of Regions.
*	Implementing Cross-Border Cooperation Programme (a component of the ENPI-CBC Programme 'Hungary - Slovakia - Romania-Ukraine, "Ukraine-Poland-Belarus, the Ukraine-Romania-Moldova and regional programme "Black Sea ") ;
*	Cooperation in the Joint EU initiatives in the Crimea;
*	Ukraine's participation in the development of the European Danube Strategy;
*	Cooperation within regional and European organizations and associations
EU allocates 470.05 million Euro to support reforms in Ukraine in 2011 - 2013.
An indicative budget of 470.05 million Euro was allocated to Ukraine through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership instrument (ENPI) for the financing of National Indicative Program (NIP) 2011-2013. This results from the NIP, which was published by the European Commission. Thus, the average annual level of funding has increased by 25% compared to the previous programming period. The overall objectives of bilateral EU -Ukraine aid are defined in the National Strategic Program (NSP) for 2007-20153. In the NIP there are identified the following priority areas:
*	Priority Area 1: Good governance and the rule of law;
*	Priority Area 2: Facilitating the coming into force of the Association Agreement EU-Ukraine (including intensive and comprehensive Free Trade Zone);
*	Priority Area 3: Sustainable development.
"The close relationship between the overall political goals and aid's purposes, are secured by the fact that the NIP takes as starting point the obligations recorded in the Association Agreement, which is found in the process of negotiations between the EU and Ukraine, and includes an intensive and comprehensive Free trade zone. There are also identified the priorities of Association Agenda, which is designed to prepare and facilitate the come into force of the Agreement, "- states NIP 54
4. 2. Practical implementation of cross border cooperation
Let's consider the examples of practical implementation of EU relations with Ukraine in the area of cross-border cooperation.
In September 2009, the European Commission passed to the State Border Service of Ukraine 24 mobile complex infrared imagers for surveillance worth 12 million Euro.
Within the program, until 2009, "Poland, Ukraine, Belarus", in which the Ukrainian part participated - Lviv, Transcarpathian and Chernivtsi region, were implemented border cooperation projects aimed to develop the health sector, environmental protection, improvement of transport infrastructure and checkpoints. All in one, for Ukrainian projects were allocated about 12 million Euro. So for example, on the project on creation of a network of emergency medical care on major highways, were spent over 800 000 Euro; on a project to improve tourist-information infrastructure in Lviv-700 000 Euro. From 2009 European programme had joined three other regions of Ukraine: Ivano-Frankivsk, Volyn and Rivne. In July 2010 there were signed contracts for three new transboundary projects, funded by the EU through the ENPI Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) Hungary - Slovakia - Romania - Ukraine, will be directed to combat child mortality, the construction of cross-border industrial parks and development of biomass energy. The first project will help to improve the business infrastructure and thereby encourage the development and cross-border cooperation between Ukrainian and Hungarian small and medium enterprises by building an integrated industrial
NSP Ukraine: http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_csp_ukraine_en.pdf
NIP Ukraine: http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/2011_enpi_nip_ukraine_en.pdf
53
park. The second project will help the development of biomass energy in the border regions of Ukraine and Slovakia, while the third aims to reduce infant mortality in cross-border area of Hungary and Ukraine.55
*Project title: „Elaboration of documents for Cross-Border Industrial Park Creation with the Elements of Logistics- "Bereg-Karpaty" Overall objective:
Improve a business infrastructure (through a created integrated cross-border industrial park) for enhancing development and cross-border cooperation of Ukrainian and Hungarian SMEs.
Specific objective:
Create a possibility to start the capital investment phase of integrated cross-border industrial park through the use of European experience. *Project title: „Bioenergy of the Carpathians"
Overall objective:
Increasing of the level of biomass energy development in UA-SK border regions. Specific objectives:
1.	To improve possibilities of biomass potential utilization in UA-SK border regions.
2.	To increase number of consumers and local/regional producers or suppliers of biomass energy equipment in Zakarpatska oblast
*Project title: „European cradle"
Overall objective:
Decreasing the level of infant (up to 1 year) mortality and infant disablement on border territory of Hungary and Ukraine. Specific objectives:
1.	To increase the percentage of infants' recovery at children's hospitals;
2.	To decrease the level of postnatal infectious diseases of infants; and
3.	To decrease percentage of infants' birth traumas and anoxaemia of cerebrum. Following the event, for your kind information all the details will be published on the
website by the JTS team (in form of photos and video fim). )
* Phare CBC - Neighbourhood Programme Romania-Ukraine 2004-2006 -"Integrated system for monitoring of environmental factors, biodiversity and natural resources in the Danube Delta Transboundary Biosphere Reserve Romania / Ukraine General objective: Improving cross-border integration between border regions by building the sound foundations for sustainable economic development through development of environmental infrastructure in the border area Romania / Ukraine
Results: A joint monitoring program implemented and working, a database established and operating, considering the Danube Delta as a whole; a trained staff in protected areas, a joint working group responsible with implementing the Joint Monitoring Programme, facilities for conducting data collection activities, supervision and monitoring in both areas of the reserve (an appropriately equipped mobile laboratory), a joint website and information materials on Transfrontier Biosphere Reserve "Danube Delta" Romania / Ukraine, printed and disseminated to target groups . Implementation period: 12/01/2006 to 11/30/2008 Project Budget: 734,158.3 Euro
* Phare CBC - Romania-Ukraine Neighbourhood Programme 2004-2006 "Cross-border cooperation to demonstrate the many uses and benefits of wetlands restoration (in polders and Stensovsko Zagen and Stensovsko Zhibrianskie Plavni) of the Danube Delta Transboundary Biosphere Reserve Romania / Ukraine
www.huskroua-cbc.net
55
General objective: To improve cross-border integration between border regions by building a strong basis for sustainable economic development. Implementation period: 08/28/2007 to 06/27/2009 Project budget: EUR 230,992.00 EUR *Project "PURE WATER"
Project Applicant: Agency of Regional Development and Cross-Border Co-operation
"Transcarpathia
The partners:
-	Uzhhorod District State Administration (Ukraine);
-	Korytnyany Village Council of Uzhhorod district of Zakarpatska oblast (Ukraine);
-	Agency of Regional Development in Košice (Slovakia). Term of realization: 24 months (from 24.07.2008 to 23.07.2010). Project results:
1.	Introducing new technologies in the sphere of sewage water purification on the territory of Uzhhorod district;
2.	Carrying out the joint cross-border activities in the sphere of prevention of environment pollution by sewage water
Cross-border impact: to improve condition of environment protection in the sphere of water resources management on border territory Hungary-Slovakia-Ukraine. Budget of the Action: 662375,00 Euro
*Project "Touring routes in Romanian -Ukrainian border region
Activity domain - tourism"2010
Project location: Romania & Ukraine
Romania - Maramures and Suceava counties - Bala Mare
Ukraina - Zacarpatska oblast - Uzhgorod.
Cross-border impact: The project activities were oriented on the development of tourism infrastructure, promotion of the cross border co-operation among the agencies of tourism, mutual elaboration of tourism's routes in the target areas and improvement of social and economy development of the region. Budget (in EUR): 64.290.
*Project: IKARUS - Intensifying of communication and cooperation of regional development actors from Ukraine and Slovakia.
Slovakia - Košice region, districts Sobrance, Trebišov, microregions Koroml'a, Borolo, Trojhraničie; Ukraine - Zakarpatska oblast.
Term of realization: April 2009 - November 2010
Cross-border impact is enhancement of cooperation and better local human and natural resources exploitation in Slovak-Ukrainian border area. *Project „Learning about the European Union" The partners are follows:
-	Agency of Regional Development and Cross-Border Co-operation„TRANSCARPATHIA", Uzhhorod, Ukraine;
-	Gymnasium and secondary school specialized in Hungarian language in Košice, 6, Kuzmönyho str.
-	GABORA DYAKA secondary school No 10, 24, Pravoslavsna naberezhna, Uzhhorod, Ukraine.
Cross-border impact is in establishing close relationships between two neighbour states Slovakia and Ukraine as well as in developing cross-border co-operation that will form suitable conditions for Ukraine's European integration. The flow of information between border regions will be ensured by carrying out seminars for project participants - pupils of 8-9
classes in Košice and Uzhhorod. As a result, participants of the target group will receive basic knowledge that can be used in the process of integration into the European Community *Project "Good Host" Program for Developing Cross-Border MultiCultural Eco-Agrotourism
Tourism, Cultural Exchange, Economic Development The project location: Romania & Ukraine
The counties Satu-Mare, Maramures, Suceava and oblasts Zakarpatsk, Ivano-Frankivska, Chernivetska.
Cross-border impact: Project was oriented on development off eco-agrotourism in the border areas as a result of which was improving of social and economic situation in the target areas as well as stimulation of co-operation between the representatives from both Romania and Ukraine territories.
Budget (in EUR): 54771. PROJECT "Staff Professionalization of local authorities in Lublin, Lutsk, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk, as part of cross-border cooperation " Budget 306 822 €
Project objective: to strengthen and support transboundary cooperation, as well as enhancing institutional capacities and capabilities of strategic planning in local authorities of Lublin, Lutsk, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk.
The period of implementation: September 2010-August 2012.
*	PROJECT "Closer to each other. One Europe - cooperation of cultural institutions, NGOs and animators "
Partners: Lviv, Brest, Lublin Budget: 172,442 €
Project goal: increase the possibility of institutional cooperation in the sphere of culture between Brest, Lublin and Lviv
Implementation period: October 2010 - September 2011
*	PROJECT "Economic cooperation of Lublin and Lviv" Partners: Lviv, Lublin
Budget: 244,097 €
Project goal: to improve conditions for business development in Lublin and Lviv Implementation period: January 2011 - June 2012
*	PROJECT "SOS - Safe coexistence of humans and stray animals in the border areas of Poland and Ukraine: Lviv, Lublin, Lutsk and Ivano-Frankivsk"
Partners: Lublin, city of Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lutsk Budget: 298 4466, 54 €
The aim of the project: improving safety among urban residents and visitors by enhancing the mechanism for regulating the number of stray animals and their protection, improving citizens' awareness of animal care and humane treatment Implementation period: October 2010 - October 2012
*PROJECT "Intentive Student
Partners: Lublin, Lutsk, Lviv, Youth Civic Center "Standard", the regional center of youth action from Ivano-Frankivsk, Public Organization "Private Initiative Development Agency" Budget: 267,854 €
The aim of the project: the creation of an active relationship among university students to develop a regional cross border cooperation on the basis of the local assets of the city Period of implementation: January 2011 - December 2012
"Business Environment Developments - Sustaining economic stability and development
of the city " Partners: Lublin, Rivne Budget: 395 000 €
Project goal: improving the conditions of the business environment in the city Rivne for establishing local business partnerships Implementation period: January 2011 - December 2012
*	PROJECT "Staff professionalization of local authorities in Rivne and Lublin" Partners: Lublin, Rivne
Budget: 445,000 €
for the project goals: improving cross-border cooperation of local authorities in Rivne and Lublin by improving the skills of their employees Implementation period: September 2010 - August 2012
*	PROJECT "Ukrainian-Polish Center for cross-border partnerships - towards a detailed cooperation"
Partners: Lublin, Rzeszow, city Zamosč, Association of local authority initiatives (Lublin), Rivne, Lutsk Budget: 235,470 €
Project goal: Increase opportunities for institutional cooperation between local self-governments and NGO's, partner of the city Lutsk Implementation period: November 2010 - June 2012
*	PROJECT "Tourist Information System in border towns - Lutsk (Ukraine), Brest (Belarus), Lublin (Poland)
Partners: Lublin, Brest, historical and cultural reserve "Old Lutsk, Brest State University, Centre for European cross-border initiatives (Lublin) Budget: 701,440 €
project goal: increasing tourism potential of cities Lutsk, Lublin and Brest Period of implementation: January 2011 - June 2012
*	The "Urban Management of the energy system in Lublin and Rivne" Partners: Lublin, Rivne
Budget: 549,120 €
The aim of the project: the introduction of comprehensive economic municipal energy management system in Lublin and Rivne Implementation period: January 2011 - June 2012
*	In 2009, the Transcarpathian Regional Committee for Water is implementing a project in collaboration with partners of Neighborhood Programme Romania - Ukraine "Improvement of flood protection and ecological rehabilitation of the environment on the Ukrainian-Romanian border region, Tisza" and the project of the Neighborhood Programme Hungary -Slovakia - Ukraine" Development of Berehove transboundary polder system in the basin. of Tisza river".
*PROJECT Transboundary partnership for sustainable community development "
EU contribution: € 231,442.00
Project period: From 07/2008 to 10/2010
Location: Ukraine - Transcarpathia (Rakhiv, Tyachevo, Hoost and Vynogradovo regions) Romania - County Maramures, Satu-Mare.
*	In 2009, started the project "Bucovina innovation center", the realization of which provides the selection of technology and training on their implementation, the foundation and development of innovative laboratories in the city Chernivtsi and the city Suceava, the adjustment of European standards and innovative management instruments to regional characteristics, trainings for local consultants and entrepreneurs, the creation of "innovation incubator", activity with investors.
*	From October 2008 until August 2009 in the county Suceava, Romania and Chernivtsi region,Ukraine, was implemented the project "Restoration of old corridors in the historical districts of Bucovina: county road number 175 Benya-Moldova Sulytsya" Budget - 711 849.44 Euro.
*	During the second half of 2008 in the Transcarpathian region, by the Polish Association "B-4" , was implemented the project "Visit and see: support for promotion and marketing of agro-tourism and ecological agriculture in the Ukrainian Eastern Carpathians" within the framework of the Programme "Polish pomoc" and supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Poland.
*	From August 2008 there was launched an international project "NEURON - a network for the integration, coordination and monitoring of local development strategies on the border territories of the county Maramures (Romania), Transcarpathian and Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukraine), with financial support from the Neighbourhood Programme PHARE CBC "Romania-Ukraine.
*	Project "Business Infrastructure in Odessa Oblast, Lower Danube Euroregion "
Duration - January 2003 - June 2005 Project cost - € 2 million
*	Project "Design of cross-border information and diagnostic centre for tuberculosis (TB) in the Lower Danube Euroregion area"
Duration - November 2005 - April 2006
Project cost - € 57,122, including grant from the European Commission - € 42977
*	Project "The consolidation of the boundary regions integration in sense of countryside and green tourism development"
Duration - July 2008 - July 2010 Project cost - 765,987 Euro
4.3. Conclusions
"The level of conceptual, methodological action is essential to any country. If not develop the concept of transboundary cooperation, it is very difficult to solve particular practical issues directly at the level of regions, cities, districts and individual business entities or public life. Ukraine carries out the relevant action that reflects its understanding of the importance and necessity of the further progressive development of cross-border cooperation as one of the essential components of European integration. Thus the Cabinet of Ministers in August 2010 approved the Concept of the State Program of cross-border cooperation development for 2011-2015. (Nr. 1838-r dated 08/15/2010). It is noted that cross-border cooperation in Ukraine is carried out under considerable disparities of socio-economic development of border areas, as well as the level of employment of these Ukrainian territories and border regions of neighbouring states, which leads to social instability of the subjects of cross-border cooperation.
Transboundary cooperation is one of the instruments to accelerate the processes of approximation of the of living standards of the population from border areas to the European average standard providing free crossing of goods, persons and capital of the state border. Such cooperation helps to bring together actors of transboundary cooperation to solve common problems of border regions, implementing European integration actions at the regional level.
There are certain factors constraining the development of cross-border cooperation, such as:
*	lack of harmonized legal acts between the parties concerning the powers of authorities on transboundary cooperation issue and the existence of differences in laws of neighbouring states;
*	differences between Ukraine and neighbouring countries in the development of regions economic independence, as well as legislation on foreign economic relations;
*	insufficiency of funds for projects on transboundary cooperation and poor development of such projects;
*	limited capacity of participants in cross-border cooperation in co-financing 10 per cent of the amount needed for the project implementation of cross-border cooperation;
*	poor development of transboundary cooperation at the level of administrative districts and territorial communities;
*	low level of personnel training in transboundary cooperation and the lack of an integrated system of professional development in this sphere;
*	restrictions on visa-free movement of citizens across the border regions;
*	low level of involvement of non-state institutions, enterprises and public organizations to implement actions under the transboundary cooperation;
*	insufficient pace of construction and arrangement of checkpoints across the state border, which leads to a mismatch of their bandwidth capacity with the possibilities of transboundary cooperation;
*	the lack of international transport corridors necessary for transboundary transport infrastructure;
*	incoherence at the international level of priorities of the participants of Euroregions, of principles and approaches towards the development of such cooperation;
*	inconsistency of regulatory, organizational and methodological support of the Euroregions by the central authorities.
The concept also outlined the ways and means of solving problems arising in the cooperation activity, and also identified areas of development:
*	extension of the integration processes as a result of transboundary cooperation with the purpose of improving the competitiveness of regions, ensuring their sustainable development under a modern technological basis and a high level of productivity and employment;
*	development of industrial and social infrastructure in the regions, aimed to stimulate their economic development and improve quality of life and welfare of citizens;
*	increased interaction between members of transboundary cooperation in business, the tourism sector;
*	modernization and development of existing transfrontier transport network in order to increase its capacity;
*	facilitating the development of border infrastructure in order to optimize the crossing state border regime by persons, movement of transport means and cargo(goods) and reducing the time of carrying out boundary-procedures;
*	create a common system of environmental protection;
*	promoting cross-border cooperation in education, science and culture;
*	development of architectural planning documentation of border areas;
*	activization of information sharing;
* ensuring the development of cooperation between territorial communities. In our opinion, in the Concept, in detail are analyzed the problems that restrain the development of cross border cooperation, as well as, the ways for overcoming them.
56
www.kmu.gov.ua The concept was endorsed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine .15.08.2010.N°1838-p
5. Republic of Moldova
5.1. Cross border cooperation EU-Moldova
The first decade of independence, the 90' s, Republic of Moldova dedicated to establishing the statehood, the transition to democracy and market economy, macroeconomic stabilization and overcoming tendencies to separatism (Transnistria, Gagauzia). And for this it was necessary, above all, to establish constructive relations with the UN and international financial organizations, as well as with Russia, a state with a dominant power in the post-Soviet space.
At the same time, being at the crossroads of Central Europe, the Balkans and the CIS as a country with a predominance of Romance-speaking population, with a common historical and cultural roots with the countries of Southeast Europe, in particularly Romania, Moldova, as well as the Baltic countries, more than other former Soviet republics has been prone to "return" to Europe. And the first steps in this direction were:
*	Moldova become a member, first among the CIS countries, of the Council of Europe (1995);
*	coming into force of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement EU-Moldova (1998);
*	entrance of Moldova in the World Trade Organization (2001);
*	adherence to the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (2001 );
*	development of the Concept of European Integration of Moldova (2003);
*	adoption by the European Commission and the Government of the Republic of Moldova of the Action Plan: Republic of Moldova - the European Union (20042005).
Republic of Moldova became the first country with the government of which, the European Commission agreed on the Action Plan (February 2005). Thus, Moldova was invited to demonstrate concrete progress in the Europeanization of the country, to mobilize new sources of growth factors in the framework of five main components of the plan:
*	political dialogue (democracy and the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, efforts to settle the Transnistrian conflict);
*	economic and social reforms and development (improving the welfare, the functioning of market economy, trade, movement of people and the coordination of social security);
*	justice and domestic affairs (effective implementation of legislation, boundary-control, combating organized crime, drug trafficking and money laundering);
*	transport, energy, telecommunications and the environment (implementation of policy, measures and reforms);
*	contacts of people (research and development, education, culture, civil society, cross-border and regional cooperation programmes)
In the Action Plan in particular was noted:
"Cross-border and regional level co-operation
(79) Enhance contacts and capacity for cooperation at the cross-border and regional level by taking up the opportunities and challenges arising from EU enlargement.
-	Encourage local and regional own-initiative approach to establish and develop cross border co-operation.
-	Implement activities based on local and regional priorities, developed in cooperation with the areas concerned
-	Pay special attention to and support the development and implementation of the new Neighbourhood Programmes through the active involvement of the local and regional levels.
-	Provide support to development of human resources and other capacities in local and regional authorities to ensure efficient implementation of cross-border cooperation actions."57
For action coordination of public administration authorities, by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Moldova Nr. 264 on March 11, 2003 was created the Commission on cross-border cooperation development within the framework of Euroregions, which main tasks are:
*	establishing mechanisms for cross-border cooperation within the framework of Euroregions as main elements of the European integration process;
*	approximation of the laws and regulations on cross-border cooperation to the level of standards of European countries - members of the Euroregions;
*	creating an implementation system of conventions and agreements (treaties) which the Republic of Moldova have joined in the forums of world and regional organizations, and decisions adopted by the Councils of Euroregions;
*	creating a structure to enhance cross-border cooperation in various areas between the administrative-territorial units of the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine; to support cooperation by promoting various forms of cross-border cooperation.
An important factor influencing the development of cross-border cooperation in the Republic of Moldova became the concept of cross-border cooperation for 2004-2006.
It identified the goals, objectives, priorities, ways of implementation of cross-border cooperation. Introduced in Europe in close connection with the development of local autonomy and regionalization, the phenomenon of cross-border cooperation, particularly in the framework of Euroregions, consists in establishing direct links between regions and communities located on both sides of the border due to the jurisdiction of local authorities, defined by the national legal framework. In Moldova, the mechanism of cross-border cooperation, which exists in various forms, operates efficiently, and its advantages are undeniable: dynamism of trade and economic relations between the involved parties, favouring exchanges in culture, arts and sciences, personal and collective contacts, cooperation in ecology, providing prompt and efficient communication of transport systems and the development of cross-border relations in various sectors. A large role in the development of cross-border cooperation, particularly between the Euroregion, has the grating by EU and other international financial organizations substantial sums assigned to the respective programmes.
The Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities (Madrid, 1980), ratified by the Parliament Decision Nr. 596-XIV from September 24, 1999, is the legal basis for action on cross border cooperation between local governments and communities. At the same time, Moldova is a signatory to the European Charter of Local government, adopted in Strasbourg in 1985 and ratified by the Parliament Decision Nr. 1253-XIII on July 16, 1997.
The Outline Convention contributes to a certain extent to cross-border cooperation and economic growth of border regions. Convention is an additional legal instrument, implying the involvement of the parties to solve some problems associated with cross-border cooperation.
57 http://ec.Europa.eu/external_relations/moldova/index_en.htm
The Outline Convention defines the main concepts of cross-border cooperation, establishing the implementation forms of this kind of cooperation.
In addition to the above-mentioned international legal acts, the activity on cross border cooperation within the framework of Euroregions is supported by a series of bilateral and trilateral treaties, agreements and protocols signed by the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine, as well as bilateral agreements signed by local (regional) authorities of the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Romania.
As a result of socio-economic and political transformations, in recent years, significantly have increased cross-border cooperation, due the following factors:
*	uniformity in terms of community, language, traditions and traditions;
*	similar economic and social conditions;
*	favourable geographic location;
*	access to EU funds.
Social and economic potential of the Moldovan-Romanian-Ukrainian Euroregions creates the premises for cross-border cooperation in various areas, including:
*	creation of a common information space on the economic potential and business environment in the border regions;
*	establishing joint structures to promote economic cooperation and mutual recognition of certification procedures of goods;
*	development of infrastructure that would facilitate border crossing and access to communications, automotive, railway, waterway and sea transport;
*	development of an overall strategy for tourism development in border regions;
*	development of cooperation relations between higher education institutions in the region, exchange of students and teaching staff;
*	cooperation in the area of research - development, intensifying the exchange of scientific information in this sphere;
*	organization of festivals, fairs, cultural fairs and regional sport competitions;
*	harmonization of programmes on environmental protection, joint implementation of projects and monitoring the cases of environmental pollution in the region;
*	share information and experience in the health sector, the consolidation of institutional opportunities, implementation of new technologies, staff training;
*	promoting implementation of know-how and information technologies;
The main reasons for local communities' involvement in the cross border cooperation activity are:
*	Transforming the borders from a dividing line into a place of communication between the neighbours;
*	Overcoming the common prejudices and animosities between the residents of bordering regions; consolidation of democratic values and promotion of administrative institutes, which are able to function on the regional and local levels;
*	Overcoming national-peripheral positions and isolations;
*	stimulating economic growth, development and improvement of living standards, inclusion in the process of European convergence and European integration ;
*	implementing an intensive and effective cooperation in order to combat drug trafficking, human trafficking, organized crime and terrorism;
*	intensifying the participation in various forms of regional cooperation;
*	developing joint programmes for the introduction of modern farming technologies, new methods of agro-marketing and trade of agricultural
58
products".
Further stages which influenced the development of cross-border cooperation were the signing in October 2007 of the Agreements between Moldova and the EU on visa simplification and readmission of persons found in the country illegally; adopting by the EU in January 2008, of the Regulation on the introduction of trade preferences for Moldova; the signing in June 2008 of Joint Declaration on the mobile partnership between the EU and the Republic of Moldova in order to strengthen legal migration opportunities, managing migration and combating illegal migration. About 40 initiatives59 are being implemented within the framework of the Mobility Partnership between the EU and Moldova.
In December 2009, Republic of Moldova joined the Energy Community.
In January 2010, negotiations have started between the EU and the Republic of Moldova on the development of the Association Agreement EU-Moldova, one of goals being the creation of deep and comprehensive free trade area (DCFTA). There was initiated a dialogue to develop conditions for visa-free movement of Moldovan citizens.
Moldovan-Romanian intergovernmental agreement on small border traffic came into force on February 26, 2010. As a result, more than 1 million citizens of Moldova, from 361 border communities will benefit from permits issued for a maximum of 60 days. Prior to the entry of Romania into the Schengen zone, permits are free.
In September 2010, Moldova and the European Union signed an additional protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which will allow the country to take part in seven new programmes of the European Community. Moldova will be able to implement programmes designed for such important areas as customs, health, competitiveness, transport, innovation, communication.
The EU is a major financial "donor", which supports the full range of reforms in Moldova. EU will allocate 273.14 million Euro to support reforms in Moldova for 2011 - 2013.
An indicative budget of 273.3 million Euro was allocated to Moldova through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership instrument (ENPI) for financing of the National Indicative Program (NIP) 2011-2013. This follows from the NIP, which is published by the European Commission. In average per year this would represent 91.05 million Euro which is significantly more than 66 million allocated to Moldova in 2010 under the previous programme period 2007-2010. The overall objectives of bilateral aid are defined in the EU in the National Strategic Program (NSP) for 2007-2013. In the NIP identifies the following priority areas;
*	good governance, rule of law and fundamental freedoms;
*	social and humane development;
*	trade and sustainable development.60
The share of 15% from the entire NIP will be allocated to resolving conflict and building confidence measures in the framework of other priorities, states NIP. "Extensive collaboration between partner countries and the EU, which is based on political framework of East partnership, existing and possible future contractual relations requires that the NIP ENPI would cover a fairly wide range of areas," - is noted in the NIP. It states that "in the next few years, there will be opened a unique door for possibilities, both for the EU
The concept of cross border cooperation of Republic of Moldova, 2004-2006 Appendix Nr. 1 to the Decree of the RM Government Nr. 1069 from September 29 2004. Official gazette
59	Appendix Nr.2. Mobile partnership
60	NIP Moldova http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/2011_enp_nip_moldova_en.pdf
and Moldova, to consolidate the pace of modernization, to secure the democratic reforms and in the future to help stabilize this immediate EU neighbour."
In the NIP, which is a policy document of the European Commission on granting assistance, it is stated about the development of bilateral relations and the domestic development of the country, as well as the pace of implementation of the agreements, in detail are	assigned	targets	for	each	priority.
Moldova also has access to other instruments of the EU support, which are used by both government organizations and civil society, for example:
*	ENPI Regional Programmes, such as Transboundary cooperation, INOGATE TRACECA;
*	Thematic budget lines, such as investment in people, Environment Programme and the EIDHR;
*	interregional programmes and instruments such as the Investment Instrument of Neighbourhood, Tempus, Erasmus Mundus, Sigma.
Moldova participates in cross-border cooperation programmes 2007-2013:
*	Moldova-Ukraine-Romania.61
*	Black Sea.62
Moldova is a country-partner within the Black Sea Synergy.
In Moldova, since 2005, is working the EU mission on the border with Ukraine (EUBAM), with the purpose of capacity building of border and customs services, to support the development of potential abilities for analyzing risk and improve interaction with other law enforcement agencies through monitoring, training and consulting.
5.2. Practical implementation of cross border cooperation
The programme Moldova-Ukraine-Romania 2007-2013, developed on the basis of previous experience of international cooperation of participating countries, as well as associated with the new realities in connection with the EU enlargement in 2007, has defined a strategy, goals and tasks of cross-border cooperation:
"The emphasis of the strategy is to develop partnerships to tackle problems which feature strongly in the cross-border area and to improve infrastructure where this will have a demonstrable effect on both sides of the border. The programme needs to balance infrastructure and softer outputs such as networks, exchange of experience and joint events. It is important to improve the infrastructure of the border areas in a range of activities in the close proximity of the border. The upgrading of roads, energy networks and environmental improvements are important in this respect. However, ameliorating the infrastructure is only one aspect of cross-border co-operation and so only small scale infrastructure will be permitted in this programme in a few measures.
It is also vitally important the Programme stimulates greater co-operation across the border through co-operation and exchange of experience activities including the creation of networks.
ii. Programme Aim
The aim of the programme is to unlock the development potential of the Programme Area in the context of safe and secure borders through increased contact of partners on both sides of the border to improve the economic, social and environmental situation in the Programme Area.
Appendix Nr. 1
: Appendix Nr.1. NSP Moldova: http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/moldova/docs/index_en.htm
This aim will be pursued in a spirit of partnership and co-operation which encourages cross-border contact and activity and makes material improvement to the infrastructure.
iii. Programme Objectives
In order to achieve this aim, the Programme focuses on a limited number of objectives. These are objectives and issues which can be successfully addressed at the cross-border level and policy areas where co-operation at cross-border level is most likely to achieve results. Three objectives have been identified which underpins the programme's strategy. In each case the objective is to pursue cross-border co-operation through:
1.	Stimulating economic and social development in the Programme Area and Adjoining Regions
2.	Tackle environmental issues in border areas and ensure that there are higher levels of preparedness for emergencies
3.	Encouraging greater contact and co-operation between people in the border
63
areas.
According to the Program, the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova is under the area scope of cross-border cooperation. Within the programme, the following projects were implemented:
*	"Technical assistance to support the budget of public health" Budget: 2,992,753 Euro (100% out of the total amount)
*	"Supply of medical equipment for primary health care centres in Moldova." Budget 3,773,174 Euro (100% out of the total amount). Implemented from 10.2008 until 03.2009.
*	"Modernization of Republican Clinical Hospital in Chisinau, budget 3,000,000 Euro (100% out of the total amount). Implementation period from 12.2008 until 12.2013.
*	"Support for the trust fund for regional development and social protection." The budget 12.5 million Euro (100% out of the total amount). Implementation period from 01.2009 until 04.2012
*	"Satisfying the needs of vulnerable populations in the Republic of Moldova" The budget 1,198,410 (100% out of the total volume). Implementation period from 11.2008 until 11.2010.
*	"Technical assistance to social sector in the Republic of Moldova." Budget 648 500.00 Euro (100% of the total volume). Implemented from 05.2009 until 09.2010
*	"Organization of the centre of care for the elderly persons and people with disabilities in Hincesti" Implementation 2009-2010, Budget: 247,000 Euro (27,000 Euro - the share of local administration). From May 2010, the Centre serves 165 people.
*	"Cross-border cooperation and sustainable management of the Nistru River basin." Implemented in 2007-2010.
*	"Joint environmental monitoring, assessment and exchange of information for integrated management in the Danube delta. Implemented in 2008-2009.
*	"Risk reduction associated with stocks of obsolete pesticides in border basins and frontier areas." Implemented in 2006-2010.
Approximately 200.000 inhabitants of Moldova will benefit from the project on improving water supply and sanitation systems, which is jointly funded by a loan of 10 million Euro granted in September 2010, by the European Investment Bank (EIB), as well as additional funds from the Neighbourhood Investment Fund ( NIF). The project will help to
http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_cross - border_cooperation_strategy_paper_en.pdf
implement the EU policies in support of the Eastern Partnership and to promote regional initiatives such as the EU strategy for the Danube region.
Currently in the Republic of Moldova there are three Euroregions.
The Euro-region "Lower danube" was established by signing the Agreement for Establishment of the Euro-region "Lower Danube" on 14th of August 1998 in Gala^i by those three countries. Members of this Euro-region are: Cahul and Cantemir Districts from the Republic of Moldova; Gala^i, Bräila and Tulcea Counties from Romania; Odessa Region from Ukraine.
The Euro-region „Upper Prut" was established on 22nd of September 2000 in Boto§ani municipality (Romania). Members of this Euro-region are: Fäle§ti, EdineJ, Glodeni, Ocni^a, Ri§cani and Briceni Districts from the Republic of Moldova; Boto§ani and Suceava Counties from Romania; Cernäu^i and Ivano-Frankivsk Regions from Ukraine.
At the time of its creation, the Upper Prut Euroregion occupied a territory of 28.9 thousand square kilometres with a population of 2.9 million. After the entrance into the Euroregion of Ivano-Frankivsk region of Ukraine (Council decision of Euroregion Upper Prut Nr. 55 from 27.05.2007) these parameters increased significantly: now the area of Euroregion has 42.8 square kilometres, and the population - 4.3 million people.
The participants of the Euroregion have a common position that the basis of the action should be the economic and trade cooperation. In the initial stages of interaction was observed the increase of export-import transactions between its participants. To the trade - economic cooperation contributed the coordination of organizing exhibitions and fairs, which are regularly held in Balti, Chernivtsi and Suceava, the participation of entrepreneurs in trade missions and partners search programmes, as well as the opening of bus passenger routes between territories from the Euroregion.
However, after the regular administrative-territorial reform and the abolition of the counties in the Republic of Moldova, volume of export-import operations of rayons from the Balti and Edinet counties declined significantly.
In the framework of the Euroregion, there were implemented a number of projects on cross-border cooperation, the results of which not only positively influenced the economic area but also the social and public sphere.
There can be mentioned, as an example, the following projects:
*	"Agricultural production without harming the environment "
*	"Support and entrepreneurship development in the Northern region of Republic of Moldova, through the creation of the International Association of Small and Medium Business "
*	"Rural Tourism Development RURAL ECO TUR"
*	"Upper Prut, a new proposal on the tourism market from the border area of Moldova-Romania"
*	"The use of alternative sources of energy derived from growing agricultural crops in the Republic of Moldova, by using experimental methods Alter-Energy"
There also should be pointed out the fact that in 2007, after Romania joined the European Union, factors have arisen, impeding a more active cross-border cooperation. They result from the need of implementation of the legislation, trade procedures, standards, EU visa regime and other changes, which have become inevitable parts of the process of expanding the EU frontiers, which is now passing on the Prut River through the whole territory of Euroregion.
In September 18th 2002, it is signed the Protocol for Cross-border Cooperation of the Euro-region Siret-Prut-Nistru in Ia§i. In December 4th 2002, it is adopted the Statute of the Euro-region Siret-Prut-Nistru within the first Forum of the Euro-region Presidents in
Ungheni. In 2005, the Euro-region Siret-Prut-Nistru Association was established, an association as a legal entity with the headquarters in Ia§i (Romania). Members of this Euroregion are: Calarasi, Orhei, Cimislia, Telenesti, Soroca, Straseni, Leova, Ungheni, Criuleni, Ialoveni, Soldanesti, Hincesti, Floresti, Basarabeasca, Dubasari, Anenii Noi, Rezina and Nisporeni Districts from the Republic of Moldova; Iasi and Vaslui Counties from Romania.
The County Council of Iasi (Romania) and the District county of Ungheni (Moldova Republic) recognized since 2000 the role and the importance of regional co-operation for Romania-Moldova Republic relationships development. Therefore, based on the community needs from both sides of the border (separated by the Prut river), the public administrative entities signed the Cooperation Agreement. In this new context, in 2002 there was established a new cross-border cooperation instrument- Siret Prut Nistru Euroregion. (The County Council of Iasi and the District county of Ungheni are among the founders).
The public administration authorities from both sides of the Prut river understood that Ungheni - Iasi cross border area includes a geographical space which belongs to South East Europe and is confronted with a low level of life quality. That's one of the reasons which Siret Prut Nistru Euroregion founding is based on. There are also other strong arguments for developing the cross-border cooperation in this border area: the common historical roots, language, civilization and common interests.
Therefore, the main objectives of the Cooperation Agreement signed between The County Council of Iasi and the District county of Ungheni are:
*	the organizational efforts of the local public authorities from Iasi and Ungheni areas are to be focused on cross-border cooperation relationship between local authorities and civil society;
*	creating long term cross-border networks, based on reciprocal consultation and transfer of information, skills and knowledge regarding the democratization of public life.
*	stimulating the twinning process between the communities from both sides of the border, in order to find solutions for common problems.
The efforts for cross-border cooperation development have crystallized into concrete projects, funded from E.U. funds such as:
*	Development of cross-border cooperation DECOR (2003-2004)
*	The assessment of the renewable energy capacities and the study of Republic of Moldova hydroelectrically resources exploitation (2003-2004)
*	Creating of the cross-border centre for training of the parents and specialists in children with disabilities assisting (2003-2005)
*	Prut river Conference (2005)
*	Creating of a resource centre for business women (2003-2005)
With its last enlargement in 2007, the European Union has taken a big step forward in promoting security and prosperity on the European continent. The accession of Romania in E.U. also means that the external borders of the Union have changed, E.U. have acquired new neighbours and have come closer to old ones. These circumstances have created both opportunities and challenges. In this context, the Economic and Social Development Strategy for Siret-Prut-Nistru Euroregion, 2007-2013 project aims to promote reinforcing the existing forms of regional cooperation and to provide a strategic framework for their further development, which is corresponding to the objectives of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)64. In Europe, the Euroregions are one of the most common instruments responsible for development of border regions and cross-border cooperation. The Euroregions should be
64 Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing an European Neighbourhood and partnership Instrument
"magnets" for the social, economic and cultural development of the areas and populations concerned, in full synergy with the territorial authorities65. However, the present situation shows that the role of Siret-Prut-Nistru-Euroregion in development and integration processes is not sufficient because the institutional capacity, especially strategic planning, is inadequate due to a lack of knowledge and experience.
Siret-Nistru-Prut Euroregion Association, with the headquarters in Iasi, is promoting the enlarging and improving of the relationships between the collectivities and local authorities in the spheres of economy, education, culture, science, sport and ensuring of a sustainable development of the region, in the context of European Union required standards. Siret-Nistru-Prut Euroregion Association is member of the Association of European Border Regions (A.E.B.R) that is acting for the benefit of all European border and cross-border regions From this prospect, A.E.B.R. actions are in conformity with European Union policies regarding regional development and community representativity at European level. In this context, the project proposes a systemic approach toward strategic planning: local strategic planning -regional strategic planning frame- European strategic planning frame.
The common problems of the members of the Siret-Prut-Nistru Euroregion are:
*	the lack of an integrated approach for sustainable development,
*	the lack of an institutional frame able to perform a strategic planning process,
*	the need to complement EU structural fund activity in Romania and the EU Action Plans for Moldova.
As a result of these problems, these areas are confronting with:
*	poor performance of their economies;
*	low skills and low productivity in rural areas and on opposite, area of highly skilled workers in urban area of Iasi;
*	low rate of direct foreign investments
*	high migration rate (from Romania to Eastern European Union countries, on one part, and from Moldova to Romania and other European Union countries, on the other part)
*	the need to address the issues regarding the environment quality. Cross-border cooperation is a process that is getting more and more a strategic vision. Therefore, the cooperation between Ungheni (Republic of Moldova) and Iasi (Romania)
evolved and conveyed to an institutional structure- Siret-Prut-Nistru Euroregion. The future success or failure of this entity is depending on the public administrations capacities to promote and sustain partnerships:
*	twinning partnerships - focused on reciprocal advantages;
*	simple partnerships- oriented toward specific short time solving problems (economic, cultural, educational, social, environmental);
*	institutional partnerships- initiated without a direct intervention of the public authorities.
5.3. Conclusions
The main factors restraining the development of cross-border cooperation in the Republic of Moldova are the following:
*	direct interdependence of the cross-border cooperation intensification from political conjuncture emerging in any given period, rather than from pragmatic effectiveness and urgency,
65 http://ec.Europa.eu/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm
*	failure of measures aimed to develop private small and medium businesses, creation of joint ventures and trade companies in border rayons, due to which, there are decreasing the possibilities of resolving acute social and economic problems of border areas,
*	result of the last territorial-administrative reform, which led to the fragmentation of the counties in rayons, which significantly reduced the financial and organizational possibilities of small border regions of Moldova in cooperation with neighbouring counties of Romania,
*	need to co-finance joint projects in the amount of 10% of the budget, which in most cases is a major constraint for the administration of border areas of Moldova, due to their difficult economic situation and budgetary resources.
*	poor activity on site, in the border areas, of civil society, institutions and economic agents, social partners, in the development, in the process of decisions making concerning the programmes and projects and their implementation.
*	a major cause of restraining the projects development is the inability of officials and local entrepreneurs to use the instruments of business planning (strategic planning, SWOT-analysis, investment planning, preparation of investment documentation, financial management).
*	lack of active dialogue aimed to achieve practical goals and tasks between the management of Euroregions and the central authorities.
6. Russian Federation
6.1. Cross border cooperation EU-Russia
For several centuries, Russia is the largest state in Europe. The nations of Russia and the Europe are united by common history, common traditions, common spiritual and cultural values. Russia is an integral part of European civilizations, having its own specific and original position of a multinational country situated on two continents and which embodies dozens of different cultures.
Perestroika and the end of the Cold War, led Russia to renovation in the early 90-s of the twentieth century, the assertion of democratic political regime with a stable orientation to a market economy. Becoming a "new "democratic Russia coincided with the emergence of the European Union.
The Russian Federation is not a member of the European Union, however, this does not minimize the importance of developing relations between the European Union and Russia, which it has both for itself and for the whole region and world as a whole.
In addition to existing economic premises, establishing close relationship is necessary for the fact that after the entry of Finland in the European Union in 1994, Russia and the European Union became the "neighbours" with a total boundary length of 1313 km. Following the enlargement of the European Union in 2004, the length of common border has grown to 2200 km. Common border has always meant common transboundary problems, which can only be solved by joint efforts. But the most important thing that conditions the development and expansion of relations between Russia and the Union, is the dependence on the substance and specificity of the relationship of stability and security in Europe, in the "new" Europe free from dividing lines, from the ideological confrontation, but still not free from armed aggression, acts of international terrorism, human rights violations, economic instability, rampant crime and other problems. It is obvious that these conditions dictate the vital importance of developing relations between Russia and the European Union on a broad range of issues.
" Not only recent events, but the entire history of our relations demonstrates that the EU and Russia need each other, and together we shall overcome the crisis and shall build a safer and fairer Europe, "said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.66
Relations between Russia and the EU also support the institutional architecture, which allows two parties to discuss on the various levels, almost all the problems of the modern world. Actual formats of the EU-Russia include summits with the Russian president, on one part, and the presidents of the European Council and the European Commission, on the other part; meetings between the Government of Russia and the European Commission, the meetings of the Permanent Partnership Council at Foreign Ministers level and in other specific configurations (including justice and internal affairs, energy, transport, science and technology, etc.), meetings at the political directors' level, regular meetings of the Permanent Representative of Russia to the EU and representatives of political and security Committee. Cooperation is reinforced in the format of the sector dialogues (including in such areas as energy, transport, industrial policy, information society, space) and at the level of expert advice on foreign and security policy (more than 20 meetings per year). Meetings of members of the Federal Assembly of Russia and the European Parliament are held on a regular basis.
66 Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, from the article "Prospects of Russia-EU relations", published on the web-site "Russia-EU partnership and success" January 14, 2009 .
Specific tasks for the near future are aimed to strengthen the strategic partnership between Russia and the EU, which are determined by the logic of developing relations with the European Union.
They include the adoption of a visa-free regime, creating a more effective and result-oriented cooperation in the area of foreign policy, particularly in crisis settlement, starting a dialogue on "relation" from the concept of economic and social development in Russia and the EU until 2020. In the context of overcoming the negative effects of global financial and economic crisis, the proposal by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, which was approved on the 25 the EU-Russia summit in Rostov-on-Don on 31 May and 1 June 2010, to create the "Russia-EU partnership for modernization "gains a special significance.
This initiative will contribute to the achievement of mutually important goals, such as technological development, promoting the compatibility of technical regulations, strengthening professional and people to people contacts, support of rapid and full integration of the Russian economy into the global trade and economic system under non-discriminatory terms.
The main argument of the correctness of the approach between Moscow and Brussels towards the innovation of their relationship is their progressive development and structural adjustment in accordance with the criteria of globalization - the practical experience of the 4 "road maps ". Its appearance is crucial, at least, to regulate the following triad: the modernization of the Russian Federation, the reorganization of the European Union (especially under the Lisbon Treaty), the promotion of the Russian Federation and the EU, and their combined capital in solving the problems and complexities of the global financial and economic crisis, other issues that make up the international agenda according to the United Nations. A few real facts are provided to prove this.
Within the first direction, there was developed a system of 16 sector dialogues -investment, energy dialogue, transport regulation of industrial production (standardization, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures), industrial policy and entrepreneurship, information society, intellectual property protection, early warning mechanism on changing the trade regime, space , agriculture, environment, financial and macroeconomic policies, public procurement, fisheries, health, and the work had begun on the interaction within the customs cooperation.
The vectors of the partnership dialogue vary and are extremely pragmatic, thus causing positive ratings. Progress on many of them, gives a practical result. In this way, today the EU is the largest investment actor in Russia. The share of EU member states accounts for more than 80% out of the total accumulated foreign investment in Russian economy. In the framework of energy dialogue with the European Union, the Russian part took the lead for the European market in gas and oil. It is obvious that the energy security of the region depends heavily on the supplies from Russia. Realizing this, the partners have introduced into the dialogue three new thematic groups - on energy efficiency and conservation, energy strategy, the development of energy markets, scenarios and forecasts. In 2009, a memorandum was signed on early warning mechanism in the energy sector. Positively was assessed the President's proposal of the Russian Federation, D.A. Medvedev on improving the international legal framework of World Energy (2009). A similar pattern exists in other formats, bringing the parties to the regime of integration cooperation.
The second "road map "for the common space on external security have its own specific tasks. One of the main is the maintenance of international order, based on effective multilateralism, indivisible security, respect for the UN, the unconditional observance of international law.
During the implementation of the document the EU and Russia, have repeatedly demonstrated their individual and cooperative ability to influence global processes, strive to optimize global governance.
A vivid example of their cooperation can be seen in the spheres of: fight against terrorism (in accordance with international standards in the sphere of human rights, refugee law and humanitarian law, on the positions of international and regional forums, in particular, the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee), non-proliferation , export control and disarmament, the universalization of international instruments, strengthening the IAEA's comprehensive safeguards, nuclear issue of North Korea and Iran's support for the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva).
An importance has a dialogue on security and crisis management with the purpose of responding to contemporary global and regional challenges and key threats. An important milestone was the involvement (at the request of the EU), of the Russian helicopter group to ensure the EU military operation in Chad and CAR in 2008-2009. Currently there are established working relationship between the Russian ships operating in Gulf of Aden, and the operation of the EU Atlanta to fight piracy on the coast of Somalia.
Actively and positively is developing the parties' cooperation in the area of civil protection. Thus, on the basis of Administrative arrangements, between the General Director of the Environment European Commission and Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia on cooperation, mutual assistance and air support is discussed a draft on creating "Euro squadron". The European Commission identified the aircraft operator, who will be as the customer on behalf of the EC, and will carry out the lease of aircrafts, including the Russian transport and air firefighting means for the use within the EU Mechanism for Civil Protection.
Continuously is intensifying the practical cooperation in the sphere of population and territories protection from emergency situations with the European Union. A real example: the tragic events in Italy, where the powerful earthquake (2009) had happened, forest fires in Greece (2007 and 2009.), as well as the earthquake in Haiti (2010). The energy stability of EU member-states is secured by building gas pipeline routes: South Stream and Nord Stream, ; the works also are supported by MES of Russia. There continues to be studied the European experience of the introduction of a single emergency phone number "112 ".
Speaking about the prospects of cooperation of Russia and the EU in this direction, we should emphasize that they may be associated with the actions on the implementation of the Russian proposal for concluding a Treaty on European Security (2009). The initiative of Russian President D.A. Medvedev represents a solution for many of the Euro-Atlantic challenges, ensuring real and indivisible security, taking into account the interests of all European states and of the international organizations working in the region (NATO, OSCE, EU, CSTO, CIS, etc.). Many EU countries are actively acknowledged the Russian diplomatic offer. These and other examples show the practical value of the content of "road maps" and their connection to specific issues of international life and the evolution of the European space. Confirmation of this is the experience and implementation of the third "road map" for the common space on freedom, security and justice. Its key thesis - cooperation of Russia and the EU as an integral part of the strategic interaction between the parties, role of which will only increase. On the "freedom" block remains a priority the facilitation of the movement of people and readmission. Unfortunately, despite the launched in 2007 of the agreement on visa simplification and readmission, significant progress in its implementation was not registered. The growing number of expert meetings is not moving to the phase regarding the needed agreements on liberalization of the current visa procedures. Slow progress is related due to lack of political will from the EU part towards making radical steps.
Good results are registered in the formation of cooperation on border issues. In 2007 an agreement was concluded between the Russian Federal Security Service and the Border Management Agency, the EU external borders (FRONTEX), which facilitated a greater interaction at the external borders.
Among the promising vectors there is another one - providing effective migration policy. In 2009, Russia took the initiative to start the migration dialogue, Russia - the EU, primarily to remove the existing difficulties on visa-free way. Within the dialogue, there are proposed to be discussed in particular, such topics as simplification of the free movement of persons, including procedures for issuing entry permits, and registration; the effective management of migration, combating illegal migration, assessment of risks associated with migration.
On the block "safety" the parties focus their attention on the resources and on the following priorities: boosting cooperation in countering terrorism and the identification of ways to act together to prevent terrorism and fight against it in accordance with international law (share assessments of terrorist threats and information on developments in counter-terrorism in Russia and the EU, the implementation of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, completion of the draft of the comprehensive convention on international terrorism), combating transboundary crime, including through the development of cooperation between law enforcement agencies (landmark - the fight against crime in the financial sector, human trafficking , drug trafficking, weapons and explosives, corruption, counterfeiting, etc.)
Among the urgent issues is the advancement towards concluding an operational agreement with Europol. The process is moving slowly. An unsolved problem remains the obtaining of mandate by Europol to negotiate with Russia. Situation contrasts against the background of the serious achievements of the Russian Federation and Europol on some aspects of practical cooperation, the growing importance of this form of cooperation, which is recognized by many member states of Europol and the European Union.
Another priority is solving the problem of narcotic drugs (including the proposal and drug trafficking, prevention of the diversion of precursors, prevention of drug demand and harm reduction).
The cooperation has clear prospects. There were started the negotiations on the agreement the EU - Russian Federation for control of precursor drugs. In Brussels, was received with interest the proposal of the Minister of Justice Alexander Konovalov to focus on the joint actions in combating synthetic drugs coming from EU member states, as well as fostering cooperation on combating drug trafficking in Russia - EU - USA.
Two important areas - enhancing cooperation on criminal issues and developing cooperation in civil and commercial issues - are landmarks in the block "justice. "
The parties engaged in a dialogue on various aspects, including the need for preparing international legal agreements: the agreement Russia - EUROJUST and the agreement the EU - Russia on legal assistance in civil and commercial issues. Unfortunately, the EU, has been repeatedly conditioning the diplomatic negotiations with different settings that become, by virtue of their long-term preservation, this political obstacle in enhancing the dialogue with Russia. Today such a situation in relation to the agreement with EUROJUST, is the statement by Brussels of impossibility of its signing, as long as in Russia does not come into force, the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data. Also the EU is not satisfied with the status of Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications (ROSKOMNADZOR). It insists on the need of creating some Russian autonomous authority for the protection of personal data, which will subordinate only to Parliament. Competent explanations of Russian experts are not always treated fully and with desire.
In the framework of negotiations on the second agreement, the representatives of the European Union raised the issue of accession of the Russian Federation as a member of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, to a number of the Hague Conventions, in particular, on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980 and 1996). Russia is studying the issue; it recognizes the importance of the Hague law. But we see that these conventions apply to family law, subjects which are not included in the dialogue on the third "road map". We must be objective.
Finally, the "road map" on creating a common space on science and education, including cultural aspects. It is based on a rich intellectual, spiritual and historic capital, close intertwining over several centuries of cultures, knowledge and traditions. All this contributes to the movement of Russia and the EU on the path of integration, the creation of truly new, innovate in fact, instruments and principles. During these years, the parties have moved towards the formation based on the Bologna Process of the European Higher Education Area. There is unfolding the cooperation within the framework of the launched programme in 2008, Tempus - IV. There is dynamically advancing the cooperation in education through the opened in Moscow (2005) European Studies Institute at the Russian University of MGIMO (University) MFA Russia. There is developed, based on experience, the Draft Actions Programme of Russia and EU: cooperation in the sphere of culture.
Thus, even a brief overview of the four "road maps" between Russia and the European Union shows their practical importance. It demonstrates the ability of the parties as strategic partners to respond to the challenges, to harmonize their interests, political will and organizing them considering the trends of globalization, of world politics and economy. Thus, there is created a specific subject of global governance, which bears high responsibility for the effective international order.
The experience, the international political and diplomatic practice gained in the last five years is a solid foundation for the development of a new agreement between Russia and the European	Union	on	a	strategic	partnership.
The urgent need of today realities is to adopt a federal law regulating cross-border cooperation. During the conference held in St. Petersburg, in September 2010, "Cross-border cooperation: the Russian Federation, the European Union and Norway," Regional Development Minister Viktor Basargin said that the adoption of the law is scheduled for October this year.
The bill was passed to the State Duma on June 30 this year. It should create a regulatory framework for the development of border areas of Russia in collaboration with neighbouring countries and aims to identify instruments for regulating and controlling such projects by the representatives of the Russian part. (On the first reading the State Duma approved the draft of federal law "On Principles of cross-border cooperation in the Russian Federation") Provisions of the law will regulate the relationship between the entities involved in the projects and determine the procedure for concluding the relevant agreements. These projects are to be implemented over the next three years under an agreement between Russia, EU countries and Norway.
Victor Basargin noted that the development of border areas is one of the priorities of state policy. Many of the administrative and legal barriers for cooperating with neighbouring countries were removed, and the work is in progress with this regards, stated the minister..67
67 FC-Novosti September 22, 2010
6. 2. Practical implementation of cross border cooperation
Cross-border cooperation in the Russian Federation means coordinated actions of federal executive bodies, executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation, local authorities, aimed to strengthen cooperation between the Russian Federation and neighbouring countries in the issues concerning the sustainable development of border territories of the Russian Federation and adjacent states, increasing welfare of the population from the border territories of the Russian Federation and neighbouring countries, strengthening friendship and good neighbourhood relations with these states. Cross-border cooperation in the Russian Federation is based on the following principles:
*	mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states;
*	peaceful resolution of border disputes;
*	mutual respect for the state laws, regarding the realization of cross-border cooperation, as well as the relevant international treaties;
*	ensuring Russia's interests in cross-border cooperation;
*	not causing damage to economic and other interests of the state, in realization of cross-border cooperation;
*	follow of the peculiarities of border territories of the Russian Federation and neighbouring states, including their heterogeneity, the nature of interstate governmental relations and historical connections with neighbouring countries, natural - resource, social - economic, architectural, transport conditions for the development of border areas, as well as the character of threats for national security of the Russian Federation in the border area;
*	compliance with the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, 1980
Border area of the Russian Federation includes the border zone, the Russian part of the waters of transboundary rivers, lakes and other waters, internal maritime waters and territorial sea of the Russian Federation, where is established the border regime, the checkpoints across the state border of the Russian Federation, as well as the territories of administrative districts and towns , sanatorium - resort areas, specially protected natural areas, and other territories which are adjacent to the state border of the Russian Federation, to border zone, shores of the border rivers, lakes and other waters, the coast of sea or checkpoints
The territory, on which the cross-border cooperation is carried out, can be defined in international treaties of the Russian Federation, agreements of the Russian Federation with foreign partners, concluded in compliance with the laws of the Russian Federation. Participants in cross-border cooperation in the Russian Federation within their powers can be the federal executive bodies, executive bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation and local self-governments, as well as legal and natural persons in accordance with the laws of the Russian Federation.
The main objectives of cross-border cooperation in the Russian Federation are:
*	creating an environment of trust, mutual understanding and good neighbourhood relations between authorities, businesses and communities of the border area of the Russian Federation and local authorities, businesses and the population of border areas of neighbouring states;
*	developing and strengthening economic, cultural and humanitarian relations between the border territories of the Russian Federation and adjacent states;
*	promoting mutual understanding and friendship between the people inhabiting the border areas of the Russian Federation and the one from the adjacent states;
*	facilitating communication between the concerned authorities, business and inhabitants groups, including ethnic communities divided by state border, the support of compatriots abroad, who live in the border area;
*	joint creation and effective development of economic and social infrastructure in border areas
*	joint solutions for economic, transport, energy, utilities, environmental, social -demographic, humanitarian and other problems of border areas;
*	providing support to public authorities of the Russian Federation, and to the local self-governments of Russian organizations involved in provision of the necessary facilities of the border area and settle the problems of cross-border cooperation;
*	creating conditions for facilitating the passage of goods exports and imports through the border territory of the Russian Federation, including the cooperation actions in provision of the necessary facilities of checkpoints across the state border and transport infrastructure, customs warehouses, terminals, etc.;
*	more efficient use of industrial and social infrastructure of the border area;
*	implementation of a coordinated urban policy in the border area;
*	creating conditions for the integration of the system for prevention and elimination of emergency situations in neighbouring countries in order to improve the response to emergencies with transboundary effects;
*	creating conditions for stopping the outflow of population from country's strategically important and sparsely populated border areas;
*	establishing counteractions in the legislation of the Russian Federation concerning the manifestations of nationalism, chauvinism, ethnic and religious separatism, ethnic tensions in the border area;
*	facilitating the implementation of Russia's domestic and foreign policy, assuring national interests and national security on the state border of the Russian Federation, including in the sphere of combating terrorism, drug trafficking and other offences..
On April 21, 2006 by the Russian Government Resolution Nr. 234, the duties for developing the public policy and legal regulation in the area of cross-border cooperation were attributed to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Regional Development.
"Cross Border Cooperation Programme with Russia will allow the regions on both sides to strengthen cooperation in areas of common interests, which have been jointly determined," said European Commissioner for External Relations and Neighbourhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner. She added: "The border regions will work together to strengthen the socioeconomic development, overcome general challenges in environmental protection, and assure the security of borders. Direct contacts between people are an important component of these programmes, and the joint actions in education, culture and civil society are major elements. I believe that the CBC will bring tangible benefits to people living in regions on both sides of the EU border. "(from the speech, November 2009 EU-Russia summit)"
Cross Border Cooperation Programmes allow solving many problems, for example, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, entrepreneurship and trade, transportation, technology, research and tourism. Regions will be able to overcome common challenges in areas such as environmental protection, conservation and renewable energy, culture and historical heritage.
The innovative character of such cooperation lies in a balanced partnership: for the first time, partner countries and the EU member states apply uniform rules for the implementation of projects, have a single budget and jointly make decisions within the common governance
structure. Local partners on both sides of the border define need in projects implementation, which meet the necessities of their region; this makes possible the use of approach "bottom-up" and proceeds from their specific needs.
EU Cross Border Cooperation Programmes with Russia: "Kolarctic - Russia, Karelia -Russia", "South-East Finland - Russia", "Estonia - Latvia - Russia, Lithuania - Poland -Russia, Black Sea".68
The border regions of Russia: Republic of Karelia, St. Petersburg, Leningrad, Pskov and Kaliningrad regions, participate in regional organizations, such as: the Council of the Baltic States, Nordic Council, the Union of Baltic Cities, Nordic Council of Ministers, the Forum of the coast regions of Europe, European Urban Association, Congress of Local Authorities of Europe and local governments, the program Northern Dimension. (Information on this cooperation, as well as the activity of Euro-regions of Russia with partners from EU countries, is in detail described by Professor Irina Busygina in the work paper "Analysis of Cooperation between the Russian Federation and European Union ", recently presented within the project" Bridge ".)
The leader of cross-border cooperation with Russia is certainly Finland. Cooperation of adjacent regions forms an integral part of the foreign policy of Finland. It is implemented in accordance with the Strategy for Cooperation with neighbouring regions, approved by the Government of Finland, on 22 April 2004. The coordinating functions are performed by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Division of Regional Cooperation). During the period of 1990-2009 years, Finland allocated for the joint projects with Russia, about 293 million Euro. The main partners of the adjacent co-operation in Finland are the North-West regions of Russia - Republic of Karelia, Leningrad region, Murmansk and St. Petersburg. Here are some projects that were implemented: MURMANSK REGION
Project Title" Development project of Municipal Administration in the Southern Kola Peninsula", Project Timing 1.4.2005 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 431 984,00 € Project Title "Family entrepreneurship development among indigenous people in the Murmansk region" Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 130 000,00
€
Project Title "Neighbouring area cooperation project of social and health authorities of Lapland Province and Murmansk region in 2007-2008" Project Timing 1.1.2007 -31.12.2008 Financing Total 74 060,00 €
Project Title Alakurtti Centre of Technology and Competence. Project Timing 1.4.2008 - 31.3.2010 Financing Total 88 800,00 €
Project Title Assessment of groundwater supply option for Apatity region. Project Timing 1.1.2006 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 200 000,00 €
Project Title Developing fire and rescue services in the Murmansk Region. Project Timing 1.1.1999 - 31.12.2010. Financing Total 215 283,19 €
Project Title Development of Police Data Management, exchange of information as well as cooperation in the Barents Region. Project Timing 29.1.2004 - 31.12.2010. Financing Total 149 865,00 €
Project Title Project against corruption in the Murmansk region. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 51 860,00 €
Project Title Networking drug prevention in the Murmansk region. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009.Financing Total 186 367,00 €
Appendix Nr.1
Project Title NDPHS/Strengthening of Intersectoral Action to fight drug abuse and drug related harm in Murmansk Region. Project Timing 1.4.2008 - 30.11.2009. Financing Total 178 471,00 €
REPUBLIC OF KARELIA
Project Title Tourism safety in the northern regions of the Republic of Karelia. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 44 000,00 €
Project Title Development Agency for Entrepreneurs in Olonets. Project Timing
1.1.2007	- 31.12.2009. Financing Total 210 000,00 €
Project Title Analysis of restoration needs of the electricity distribution network of Petrozavodsk and a plan for the refurbishment and maintaining of the network. Project Timing 1.1.2008 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 84 040,00 €
Project Title Analysis on Operations, Marketing and Rail Traffic at the International Frontier
Station Vartius - Lytta. Project Timing 5.6.2008 - 28.2.2009. Financing Total 77 200,00 €.
Project Title One year PD-education program of management of pedagogical leadership. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 230 000,00 €
Project Title Development Plan for National Media in the Republic of Karelia. Project Timing 1.1.2008 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 45 800,00 €
Project Title Development of water protection at Lake Onega. Project Timing 1.1.2005 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 228 000,00 €
Project Title NDPHS/Fighting Tuberculosis in Karelia. Project Timing 1.1.2005 -30.11.2009. Financing Total 590 871,00 €
Project Title Together against tobacco and alcohol - a community programme to prevent alcohol consumption and smoking among youth. Project Timing 1.1.2006 -31.12.2008. Financing Total 174 756,00 €
Project Title Support to the implementation of the Health Promotion Policy in the Republic of Karelia. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 199 158,00 €
Project Title Prevention of HIV infection in the Republic of Karelia in 2007-2009. Project Timing 1.12.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 196 879,00 €.
Project Title Support to Social Work Addressing Families and Children in the Republic of Karelia. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 199 990,00 € CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
Project Title Ubiquitous Society: ITS in Saint Petersburg. Project Timing 1.2.2007 -30.9.2008. Financing Total 300 000,00 €
Project Title A Feasibility Study for Building Business Innovation Capacity - Current State Analysis of the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the St. Petersburg Area. Project Timing 1.1.2008 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 71 370,00 € Project Title Implementing Web based teaching methods and practices for distance learning in Finnish - Russian intercultural masters' programme. Project Timing
1.1.2008	- 31.12.2009. Financing Total 63 470,00 €
Project Title Enhancing intellectual property rights competence - A Joint Finnish-Russian Cooperation Project. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 50 014,00 €
Project Title Northern Dimension Partnership on Health and Social Wellbeing; joint Nordic project on alcohol and drug prevention among youth in St. Petersburg. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 111 000,00 €
Project Title Development of quality improvement system in primary care in St. Petersburg. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 198 013,00 €
Project Title Adolescents' Health and Safety. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 56 061,00 €
Project Title Support to Independent Living, Social Integration and Employment of Persons with Disabilities in the City of Saint Petersburg. Project Timing 1.1.2008 -31.12.2010. Financing Total 99 755,00 € LENINGRAD REGION
Project Title Analysis of the restoration needs of the electricity distribution network of Toksovo and a plan for the refurbishment and maintenance of the network. Project Timing 1.2.2008 - 31.7.2008. Financing Total 40 340,00 €
Project Title Reform of local self-governance in the Leningrad Region. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2008. Financing Total 131 844,00 €
Project Title Psychological and social support to HIV infected women in the Leningrad Region 2007-2009. Project Timing 1.1.2007 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 197 834,00 €
Project Title Better youth - The welfare of Youth, Children and Families in Vyborg. Project Timing 1.1.2008 - 31.12.2009. Financing Total 72 245,00 €
Project Title Identification of Priority Measures to Reduce Water Pollution in the Neva-Ladoga Basin. Project Timing 1.3.2008 - 28.2.2009. Financing Total 450 000,00 € 69
Cross-border cooperation in Kaliningrad region of the Russian Federation has its own, not a long, but quite a rich history that began with a moment of turning it into a Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea. The region has accumulated an extensive and varied experience in dealing with border neighbours. By the instrumentality of international projects, it is possible to act together to solve common problems of adjacent areas. In cross-border cooperation there are involved almost all municipal institutions, dozens of non-governmental organizations, businesses, and many public sector institutions
Particularly should be mentioned the projects which aim to create segments for future innovation system of the Kaliningrad region. Since 2004, with the participation of Kaliningrad partners there were developed and implemented 46 projects, worth about 8 million Euro. The performed actions contributed to the socio-economic development of the area.
Ministry of Territorial Development and the interaction with the institutions of local government of the Kaliningrad region is a participant of one of the projects - "Partnership between Russian and Polish institutions of local self-government as a ground for cross-border".
The goal of the project is studying the Polish experience in municipal reforms and its potential application in the transition to a two-lever organization of local self-governments in the Kaliningrad region. Also, the Ministry supports a number of projects, aimed to survey investment opportunities of municipalities in the region, training professionals able to draw up project proposals, the development of tourism potential of cities with the preserved Gothic castles. One of such project is " East - West Window", designed to promote the territorial integration of the North-West Russia in the Baltic Sea region through the common spatial planning and participation in projects for the development of such priority areas as business, transport, ICT and space planning of marine areas. The overall project objective is to create conditions for accelerated development of the Baltic Sea region through a more efficient use of existing potential of the territory. Realization of this goal will facilitate and encourage the solution finding for regional problems, the successful socio-economic development of
NEIGHBOURING AREA COOPERATION BETWEEN FINLAND AND RUSSIA. LIST OF ONGOING PROJECTS June 2008 Department for Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia Unit for Neighbouring Area Cooperation. MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FINLAND
Kaliningrad region and other North-West Russia regions which are connected with the Baltic area.
In fact, there is created a new model of cross-border cooperation, tailored to European templates, but which allows to fully taking into account the peculiarities of each territory.
Regional Policy Dialogue: in early 2007 a new formal Dialogue on Regional Policy cooperation was established with the Ministry of Regional Development Russian Federation to exchange information and best practices on experiences in setting up and implementing regional policy.
A number of specific issues were identified in which Russia and the EU face similar challenges and/or in which EU experience may be valuable to further develop regional policy making in Russia, as for example: EU experience in devising instruments in support of innovation-driven regional development; territorial cohesion and spatial planning, preparation of regional development strategies and implementation programmes; information exchange on financing foreseen from structural funds in 2007-2013 for EU regions bordering Russia as well as projects foreseen for funding on both sides; classification and definition of regions and multi-level governance. It was agreed to hold a series of seminars during 2008 on these issues also involving sub-regional representation and civil society.
Neighbourhood Programmes: The Neighbourhood Programmes and provide a main contribution to the cross-border regions and to the strengthening of economic and people-to-people ties between Russian and EU regions. From the 186 projects approved by the selection committee, 171 projects were contracted or started in NW Russia (for a budget of around €30 million) by the end of 2007. As a result, a total of 227 projects were running at the end of 2007.
Cross Border Cooperation programmes: The introduction of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) provided a specific and innovative feature of the Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC). This component aims at financing "joint operational programmes" bringing together regions of the EU Member States and partner countries sharing a common land or sea border. The CBC Strategy Paper for 2007 - 2013, adopted in March 2007, identified the areas eligible for 15 geographical programmes along the EU external border and provided them with indicative financial allocations of approximately €1.1 billion in total. Russia can participate in 7 of these, corresponding to a Commission contribution of €307.488 million over the seven year period.
At the Mafra Summit Russia announced a contribution of €122m for these Cross Border Cooperation projects bringing the overall amount to €429.488 million in addition to some additional pledges made by Member States. The exact breakdown of the Russian
70
contribution and the financing modalities are currently under discussion.
Several projects under the Programme of the EU-Russia solve the problem of e-government. In this way, administrative capacity-building project in Kaliningrad (€ 7 million) also includes a major component in the development of electronic government within the Kaliningrad regional and local authorities.
* Within the investment EU-Russia dialogue, held in Kaliningrad in December 2006, there was launched the project with a budget of 6.7 million Euro and on a period of 3 years "Administrative capacity building of Kaliningrad region", which focuses on promotion of investment attractiveness of the region..
* A new project "Towards Enhanced Protection of the Baltic Sea from Main Land-based Threads: Reducing Agricultural Nutrient Loading and the Risk of Hazardous Wastes" started in February 2009. The overall objective of this project is to promote Baltic Sea protection from hazardous waste as well as from agricultural nutrient loading. The project will
EU-RUSSIA COMMON SPACES PROGRESS REPORT 2007 Date: March 2008 p.25
aim at reaching this goal by improvement of management of hazardous and agricultural wastes in St. Petersburg, Leningrad and Kaliningrad Oblasts of the Russian Federation. It has been agreed to co-finance a €40 million programme which will upgrade waste water plant facilities in Kaliningrad Oblast. The EC will contribute €9.5 million to the programme. The Kaliningrad Government will contribute €20 million and the balance will be financed under a loan organized through NEFCO (Nordic Environmental Finance Corporation).
The construction of the Saint Petersburg Sludge Incineration Plant was carried out on the basis of a €29,8 million contract, out of which €24,9 million is financed by the Commission. The provisional acceptance certificate for the construction was granted in December 2007. Final acceptance tests were completed in the first half of 2008. Supervisory
71
services for the 2-year maintenance period are funded by the Commission.
Some of the main achievements in the EU-Russia dialogue in 2009 included:
General:
*	Negotiations for the New EU-Russia Agreement continued (5 negotiation rounds were held in 2009);
*	Financing Agreements of 5 Cross Border Cooperation programmes (Kolarctic, Karelia, South East Finland - Russia, Lithuania - Poland - Russia, Estonia-
72
Latvia-Russia) were signed (ratification by Russia pending).
*	A project on Enhancement of Management of the RF Border Checkpoints
financed under the Common Spaces Facility with a budget of Euro 600 000 started in September 2009. The project is implemented by the International Organisation for Migration. The Project Partner is the Federal Agency for Border Management of the Russian Federation (Rosgranitsa).
*	-The Chernyshevskoye border crossing point (€ 8 million investment), on the Lithuanian border, was officially opened in October 2009.
The EU-financed construction of a border crossing at Mamonovo II (€ 13.3 million investment) was completed in December 2009. The contractor faced serious problems due to the failure of the Russian authorities to implement the exemption of taxes and other duties to which he was entitled.
The EU financed €10 million project (TACIS AP2006) for the construction of the Sovetsk crossing post close to the Lithuanian border, had to be cancelled, after Russia had informed that it was unable to finance the preparatory work.73
Russia will allocate for the development of cross-border cooperation with EU countries for 2010-2013 up to 105 million Euro, including 24 million Euro - in the current year. The relevant disposition was signed by the Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
The document provides for the transfer of the financial contribution of the Russian Federation to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which is the financial agent of the Russian government in the implementation of cross-border cooperation with Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia, as well as the programmes "Kolarctic" and "Karelia".
For the 2011-2012 year, for these purposes should be provided up to 34 million Euro annually; while for 2013 - up to 13 million Euro.
The EBRD funds will be transferred after the coming into force of the agreements. The Government is entrusted with providing the necessary appropriations in the formation of the federal budget for next fiscal year and the planned period.
71	EU-RUSSIA COMMON SPACES PROGRESS REPORT 2008 Date: March 2009 p.23
72	EU-RUSSIA COMMON SPACES PROGRESS REPORT 2009 Date: March 2010 p.3 http://ec.Europa.eu/external_relations/russia/index_en.htm
73	Ibidem p18-19
From 2010 the non-profit organizations from St. Petersburg, the Republic of Karelia, Leningrad, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Pskov and Kaliningrad regions had the opportunity to participate in the new program, Nordic Council of Ministers, aimed to strengthen cooperation between the countries. The new program is a sub-programme of the Council under the "Knowledge Building and Networking cooperation with partners Programme in North-West region of Russia." It provides an opportunity for non-profit organizations in North-West Russia to strengthen collaboration with partners from Nordic countries and receive financial support from the Nordic Council of Ministers.74
Mission of the European Union in the Russian Federation has launched a new program called "The Partnership for modernization. " The program aims to support the coordinated actions in accordance with the priorities of the Partnership and EU-Russian dialogue in the framework of the four Common Spaces.
During the EU-Russia summit, which took place on May 31 - June 1, 2010 in Rostov-on-Don, the leaders announced the beginning of partnership for modernization for the well-being of its citizens. In a joint statement the parties identified priority areas and welcomed the implementation of specific projects.
The program "The Partnership for Modernization, " as a financial instrument, is aimed to support the activities implemented in the agreed priority areas and designed for currently existing dialogue between the EU and Russia in the framework of the four Common Spaces. Starting from October 1, 2010, authorized representatives, from the ministries, federal agencies and services of the Russian Federation, as well as general directorates from European Commission, that take part in EU-Russian dialogue concerning the priority areas of the Partnership for Modernization, may apply within the program "The Partnership for modernization". Applications will be considered by the European Commission services and the Russian government. Approved applications will be carried out by experts or consultants, selected in accordance with the tender procedures of the European Commission. In some cases, may be concluded direct agreements with international organizations.75
Russian State Duma in July 2010 ratified five agreements on the financing and implementing of cross-border cooperation with the EU. All submitted for ratification agreements on the financing and implementation of five programmes on cross-border cooperation - "South-East Finland - Russia", "Lithuania -Poland - Russia", "Karelia", "Estonia - Latvia - Russia "and" Kolarctic "- were signed on 18 November 2009 in Stockholm. The aim of all the documents is to define the foundations of relations of Russia and the EU within the framework of the implementation CBC programmes carried out under the ENPI. According to the text of the agreements in the implementation of "Karelia" programme, from the Russian part participate the Republic of Karelia, St. Petersburg and Leningrad, Murmansk and Arkhangelsk regions. The financial contribution of the Russian Federation on the implementation of this programme is carried out from the federal budget funds and makes up 11.6015 million Euro, while EU contribution is 23.2025 million Euro.
In the programme "Estonia - Latvia - Russia" from Russia's part are participating the Leningrad and Pskov regions, St. Petersburg, and the financial contribution of Russia represents 15.909 million Euro. At the same time, the EU contribution will be equal to 47.775 million Euro.
In the program, "South-East Finland - Russia" from the Russian part, participate the Republic of Karelia, Leningrad region and St. Petersburg. Contribution of the Russian Federation on
74	http://www.regnum.ru/news/! 128051.html#ixzz12MiWXYXG
75	• •
75 russianmission.eu
the implementation of this program is also carried through the federal budget and amounts 18.0925 million Euro, while EU contribution represents 36.1854 million Euro.
Kaliningrad region, according to the text of the agreement, will participate in the implementation of programme "Lithuania - Poland - Russia. " To implement this programme, Russia will provide funds amounting 43.999 million Euro, and the EU - 132.130 million Euro In addition, from the Russian part in the implementation of the programme "Kolarctic" participate Murmansk, Leningrad and Arkhangelsk, Nenets Autonomous District, as well as the Republic of Karelia and St. Petersburg. The financial contribution of the Russian Federation for this program is 14.120 million Euro, while EU contribution - 28.241 million Euro.
In August 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a federal law on ratification of agreements between Russia and the European Community for financing and implementing five programmes between Russia and the EU. These are the agreements on cross-border cooperation - "Karelia", "Kolarctic", "Lithuania - Poland - Russia", "Estonia -Latvia - Russia and South-East Finland - Russia". Documents include, first of all, all the subjects of the Federation, adjacent with the EU member countries and secondly the Russia border territories with, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.
Trade, investment projects and tourism exchange between Russia and EU are the most actively implemented in the EU-Russia border area. Therefore, during the recent forums, Russia - The European Union there was noted that adjacent to each other regions of the EU and Russia have become the channels of customs and economic convergence between the EU and Russia. Therefore, it is needed a further enhancement of economic conditions of cross-border cooperation. This is the aim of Agreement and the relevant federal laws, signed by the President of the Russian Federation.
According to estimations of regional administrations, the documents provide preferential regimes for trade, investment and environmental cooperation, as well as for tourist exchanges in the EU-Russia border area. The laws reflect the economic and legal framework of Russia's participation in these programmes - in addition to existing in the EU cross-border economic and legal mechanism.
Thus, in the EU-Russia border area is aimed to increase the capacity of customs checkpoints. As well as simplifying customs procedures for trade, investment and tourist flows. As noted in the signed laws, all projects of cooperation in these areas at first have to be agreed between the authorities of Russia and EU member countries. Then - they are nominated for the contest, and the realization of the selected^projects will be carried out under contract with the authorized agencies of Russia and the EU.
In June 2010, in Petrozavodsk was held the International conference on cross-border cooperation between Russia and EU countries.
The event was attended by plenipotentiary of the Russian president in the Northwest Federal District Ilya Klebanov, who has stated the need for a federal law "On the basis of cross-border cooperation".
"For many border regions, and municipalities, there are no other chances, but the support from regional and federal level to develop their capacity on cross-border cooperation. People just have nothing to do, unless we help them to develop cross-border relationships. Today, there are many restrictions from the part of federal agencies and law enforcement agencies, which be removed by this law"- quoted Klebanov's press service of the Government of Karelia.
During the conference, there were discussed the experience of Karelia in the development of cross-border cooperation with Finland. Over the past 20 years on the territory
"Russian Business Newspaper" Nr762 (29) from August 10, 2010.
76
of Karelia at the expense of Finland budget there were implemented about 440 projects worth around 35 million Euro. Among the most significant investment projects are construction of sewage treatment plants in Lahdenpohja and Sortavala, development and reform of health and social services for the population of Karelia. Also, in the framework of transfrontier cooperation, taking into account the funding of the European Union in Karelia there was built an international checkpoint Suoperya, visit centers for the National Park Paanajarvi and park Vodlozersky, as well as five information tourist centers. With the participation of the Finnish capital, there were built such large enterprises for Karelia as timber-processing plant "Setles" in the village Impilahti and the company in manufacturing electronic products "Karhakos" in Kostomuksha.77
The main priorities of cross-border cooperation of the Estonian Republic and the NorthWest region of Russia are the development of the transport sector, primarily, the problem solving of insufficient capacity of the checkpoint of Narva (Ivangorod), (Russia - Estonia), investment in construction of roads, development of tourism projects. About this, said on September 28, 2010, Krista Campus, head of the Office of Territorial Cooperation with the EU, of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Estonia during the fifth annual international conference "Cross-border cooperation: the Russian Federation, the European Union and Norway", held in St. Petersburg.
According to Campus, for the implementation of cooperation projects with Russia, there will be allocated around 47.7 million Euro. Among the bilateral tourism programmes Campus stressed the programme for developing water tourism, in particular the creation of tourist
78
routes in the area of Lake Peipsi, as well as joint projects on environmental protection". 6.3. Conclusions
After EU enlargement in May 2004, when several countries from the Baltic Sea region joined EU, the conditions for the development of cross-border relations have changed significantly. There aroused new possibilities, but at the same time appeared serious organizational problems in the development of transboundary regional relationships. This was due not only to regional transformations, but also due to the changes in international development in general. Russian and Finnish experts stress that "globalization and development of new information technologies resulted in the fact that regions are facing a new problem: they are drawn into the international competition in a situation of unpredictable and changing environment. The necessary condition for stimulating economic growth and enhance competitive advantages is the ability to create new products and services, to generate business
79
processes .
We have to admit that the Centre for regional and transboundary cooperation created on May 30, 2006 during the session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe in St. Petersburg did not become a significant factor in promoting transfrontier and cross-border cooperation within Euro-regional integration process. Despite this fact, the idea of establishing a centre, submitted by Mr. Giovanni Di Stasi, the former chairman of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, has received very broad support from the Council of Europe and many countries, and the position of St. Petersburg as a unique bridge between Europe and Russia allowed him to cope with this task, but the project didn't continue due to bureaucratic reasons largely.
77	RIA Novosti, June 4,.2010
78	http://www.regnum.ru/news/1209670.html#ixzz12MhsBGKM
79	[The Vision 2013 2005: 3]. The Vision 2013. To Make Our Common Area a Better Place to Live and Generate New Business. 2005. Centre of Expertise in Southeast, Finland
The intensity of cross-border linkages in the North-West Russia is particularly high. The economic cooperation is often a necessary foundation for establishing institutional relations, a traditional basis for the partnership. However, during the implementation of institutional cooperation, North-West region faces several challenges. Inter-state issues have a direct impact on cross-border cooperation of Russia's regions; these are questions of Russia's relations with the European Union and neighbouring countries in the North-West border of Russia, including the unsettled problems between Russia and the Baltic States. "Cross-border position - this is only a potential benefit in terms of geographic location. It can provide feedback only when with corresponding provision of facilities - the development of cross-border transport infrastructure - building new facilities, upgrading existing ones, improving the quality of service. The cross border cooperation needs to "to be equipped" and institutionally, developing its legal framework, which is still fragmented. Federal law regulates only certain aspects of cooperation; the fundamental regulation does not exist. Obstacles for developing cooperation, represents the incomplete legalization of boundaries in the legal arrangements (e.g., the Russian-Estonian border). Finally, the
development of cross-border interactions cannot be considered separately: it strongly depends
80
from the general trends in Russia's relations with neighbouring states."
The Russian federal centre and as well as the European Union and its agencies pay today a heightened attention to North-West region of Russia due to its geopolitical and geo-economic attractiveness. The support for EU cross-border cooperation is conditioned by the strategic objectives: the possibility of opening new markets, the European security interests, political stability and economic cohesion, the ability to avoid the negative effects of competition between regions, the development of national / regional economies in the post-socialist countries. To achieve these goals, there is encouraged the creation of interstate agencies to coordinate cross-border cooperation. Cross-border cooperation not only helps create a positive political environment, but also fills with concrete projects the Russian-Baltic interstate relationship. Many issues depend on the initiative of regional authorities, their ability to catch the interest of the population and businesses, as well as to defend those interests at the federal level, when it is needed.
Cross-border cooperation has become an important part of life of local communities, municipal territorial entities of Russia, situated nearby the border. The intensity of the development process of cross-border cooperation is different in different subjects of Russia and even in municipalities located in the same region. This situation is a consequence of the high degree of concentration of foreign trade activities management in the hands of regional authorities and essential differences in the level of economic development of the municipalities themselves. The local community, including executives and employees of municipalities, in fact, has no influence on the policy of such key federal agencies in the area of cross-border cooperation, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Regional Development, Federal Customs Service, and Federal Border Service. Decisions are made in the best case, taking into account the views of regional authorities, while all the infrastructure problems are borne by local governments.
For Russia and the EU countries the maintenance in their relationship of their positive elements and the transition of these relationships to a higher quality are vitally important. But these relations need a new philosophy, which is based on an understanding that in the end not even a strategic partnership , but rather a strategic alliance based on equality of rights and global responsibility, can prevent the relative marginalization of the European Union and Russia in terms of reduction (for EU) and maximum conservation (for Russia) of their perspective share in world's GDP, contribute to their stability against the challenges and
I. Busygina, E. Lebedeva Subjects of the federation in the international cooperation p.26.2008 year.
threats of the future world, strengthen their positive role in it. Acting in isolation from each other and moreover competing, Russia and Europe, most likely, will not be able to claim the role of world-class centres of power of the future world order, comparable to the U.S. and China, and will become objects of external forces policy. Under the complementarity of economic, political, diplomatic, military, political and geopolitical capacity of the parties, such a pole can only be a union between Russia and the EU.
Europe - one of the main sources of Russia's civilization and identity, the Russia's social and cultural modernization. For the modern EU, Russia is the largest and the only additional external resource of geopolitical influence, economic and political subject in the future world. Over the past years, Russia and the European Union have gained significant experience in constructive cooperation on most issues, of their political and economic relations. But let's be sincere. While these relations are deadlocked, this leads to "provincialization" and "degeneration" of Russia - the EU agenda, reducing the ability and willingness of the parties to compromise on the current agenda issues and to overcome the logic of "zero-sum game," reinforcing the dependence of their relationship from external factors.
Officially, the stated goal of relations is a strategic partnership. However, under this conceptual vacuum, and the level of competition and even rivalry, it cannot be able, even in
the case of signing the relevant documents, to bring the relationship in correspondence with
81
the long-term needs of the parties in a dynamic future world.
81 S. Rarganov: European Union, NATO and Council of Europe may be under the auspices of a new European Treaty. Rossiyskaya Gazeta - Federal edition Nr 4786 from November 6, 2008 .
Problems arising in the border regions of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova while establishing cooperation with neighbouring EU countries, are largely associated with the peculiarities of public administration. In all countries the implementation of the projects on cross-border cooperation to a certain extent depends on the decisions taken at the centre. Rigid centralism often makes meaningless the attempts of local managers to increase the competitiveness of the region, which adversely affects its external economic relations, including with neighbouring countries. In the development of cooperation with them, the main emphasis is put on the collaboration at the state level with the apparent underestimation of regional and local level. Meanwhile, cross-border cooperation implies an active participation of regional and local authorities in its development.
This complicates the organization of cross-border relations, reduces the initiative of local authorities to develop cooperation with other countries.
Thus, one of the main conditions for increasing the effectiveness of international cooperation of border regions is the rejection from excessive centralization and empowering regions with sufficiently broad powers. The central government should support cross-border cooperation by providing local and regional authorities the necessary powers and resources without fear to lose the sovereignty. However, local authorities play a key role in providing services to citizens, and must be fully involved in the implementation of initiatives on cross-border cooperation. A serious negative impact on the cooperation development of border regions has a shortage of skilled professionals in the regions, the weak implementation of modern methods of organization of foreign economic activity, the lack of information on opportunities for cooperation, lack of financial resources of the potential participants of the cooperation.
A serious obstacle for international cooperation of border regions represents the "non-complementarity" of national legislations of the countries and the EU.
A considerable element of uncertainty in cooperation represents the problems of relations between Belarus and Russia with the EU at the state level. Thus, periodically there are emerging tensions with the EU (including with neighbouring Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), creates an unfavourable political background for cooperating with them on the regional level.
General changes in foreign policy do not necessarily have to complicate the situation in the border regions. If cross-border programmes have been "launched", then they should be implemented strictly at the regional level without interference from the national level. It is the duty of state and government to facilitate and promote this cooperation, rather than impede it. Potential cross-border cooperation should be used to maximize the perpetuation of stable political relations between neighbouring countries.
A constraint is the lack of political and institutional accountability and responsibility for the results of implementation or non fulfilment of decisions, agreements, programmes, projects on cross-border cooperation.
There should be noted that most of the international regional policy in the implementation of Euroregional model on post-Soviet space is just an "intentions policy" and the self-presentation rhetoric; the real experience of cooperation and implementation of joint projects is insufficiently effective. Of course, there is a shortage of new ideas and forms of cooperation. CBC members themselves feel a lack of information about the practice of cross-border cooperation in the municipalities of West European countries.
Any significant improvement in the current situation in cross-border cooperation is impossible without a better planning, identification of the most effective instruments, determining directions, and better-financial support from EU. There is a need to link regional
development strategies surrounding border areas. This is especially important for improving the infrastructure of checkpoints and trans-European transport corridors, state-forging systems of electrical networks, environmental protection, management of migration flows, joint efforts to fight organized crime.
However, cross-border transfrontier cooperation is part of the process of European integration. It is an instrument of convergence of non-EU with the Union, and in this sense it is a factor in creating a "Wider Europe".
The system of cross-border cooperation facilitates the harmonization of legislation of neighbouring countries with the EU regulations, thus contributing to the creation of a single EU institutional and legal space, which is a premise for the subsequent formation of a common economic space of "the EU - neighbouring countries."
The need to secure national borders should not limit the potential of this important area of international cooperation.
The border regions of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova under globalization processes are involved directly in the area of international problems. For many regions the foreign economic activity, cross-border cooperation have become an important factor for socio-economic development.
In conclusion I would like to say that William Penn, one of the leaders of the Quaker movement in England, published in the end of the seventeenth century a paper entitled "Essay on the present and future peace in Europe." It was, in essence, a new word in the development of the "European idea" as it was attempting to combine Christian humanism and pacifism with a pragmatic approach, which allowed taking into account the real political structure of Europe, divided into many states. William Penn described the benefits that can be gained from securing a peaceful order in Europe.
This implies not only saving lives and the results of human labour, restoring the authority of Christianity and the embodiment of its moral ideals, but also the positive impact of peace in Europe on economic and cultural life - the development of industry, trade and routes in Europe, construction, education, art. One of the central ideas of William Penn was the creation of the European league, or confederation ." Its supreme body should have been a meeting of representatives of European countries (Congress, the Supreme Soviet, Parliament or Chamber). While, the main function of this European Forum, William Penn related to the peaceful settlement of conflicts between nations or by (in a situation where one of the conflicting parties are not subject to the decision and has resorted to violent methods) sanctioning and organizing joint actions with other states in order to force it to submission and compensation of damage to the victim. William Penn's peculiar approach to the determination of members of the European leagues is the following: he enumerates the European states, completing the list: on the East - Poland and of that times the Courland, but believes that "it would be worthy and just" to accept in this league, "the Turks and Muscovites".
8. Bibliography
1.	Ä^eKceeBa T., ropgeünuK A., ^ocraHKo E. B3auMogeücTBue Pecny6.nuKu Be.napycb c Begy^uMu eBponeücKuMu op^aHU3a^uaMu b koh^ 1990-x rr. // Be.nopyc. ^ypH. Me^gyHap. npaBa u Me:®gyHap. oraomeHuu. 2000. http://www.evolutio.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=
2.	Be.^u^KUH B., OguHe^ E., OpnoB H. OnbiT ynacrua Be.napycu b nporpaMMax goöpococegcraa EBponeHcKoro Coro3a // ^ypH. Me^gyHap. npaBa u Me^gyHap. OTHomeHHH. 2008. Nr. 3. C. 77—81; ^ocraHKo E. nonuruKa cocegcTBa EC: uHcrpyMeHTbi coTpygHunecraa gna YKpauHbi, Mo^goBH, Be^apycu // Be^opyc. ^ypH. Me^gyHap. npaBa u Me^gyHap. oraomeHuu. 2004. Nr. http://www.evolutio.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 697&Itemid=
3.	H.BycwruHa,E.neöegeBa. CyöbeKTbi $egepa^uu b Me^gyHapogHoM coTpygHunecrae. AHa^uTunecKue 3anucKu.BbinycK 3(32).MrHMO(Y) MHfl P0.2008r.
4.	^epraneBa B.B.TpaHcrpaHunHoe coTpygHunecrao KaK ocHoBHaa cocraB.naro^aa Me^gyHapogHoro HaynHo-TexHunecKoro coTpygHunecTBa.EKoHoMiHHuH BicHuK
HTyy"Kni" y^k 005.336
5.	CepreH KaparaHoB: Coro3 EBponbi, HATO u CoBeT EBponbi MoryT HaxoguTbca nog ^^ugoH HoBoro oö^eeBponeücKoro goroBopa. "PoccuHcKaa ra3eTa" - Oegepa^bHHH BbmycK Nr.4786 ot 6 Hoaöpa 2008 r
6.	A.KpyraamoB, ro.Ko^Kaa. Be^apycb-TaKaa nu peruoHa^bHaa no^uruKa Hy^Ha cTpaHe? CoBpeMeHHaa EBpona Nr.3,2010 r.
7.	HyKbaHoB, Oegop. HoBoe coraameHue Me^gy PoccueH u EBponeHcKuM Cow3om: yc^oBua u bo3mo^hoctu. In Partnership with Russia in Europe. Scenarios for a Future Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Fourth Discussion Circle Meeting Morozovka (near Moscow). September 10-12, 2006.
8.	Hu^ob B.A. Poccua - EC. CTpaTerua napTHepcTBa // Me^gyHapogHaa ^u3Hb. -2004.Nr. 9. - CeHTaöpb.
9.	Bbicryn.neHue r-Ha rroHTepa OepxoüreHa, H^eHa EBponeücKoü Komuccuu b ^unnoMaTunecKoH	aKageMuu	-	MocKBa,	27.10.2003. http://www.delrus.cec.eu.int/ru/news_45.htm
10.	OcHoBHbie HanpaB^eHua BHyTpeHHeü u BHemHeü no^uruKu Pecnyö^uKu Be^apycb: yTBep^geHH 3aKoHoM Pecnyö^uKu Be^apycb ot 14 Hoaöpa 2005 r. Nr. 60-3. URL: http://www.pravo.kulichki.com/zak/new03/newc3820. Xa^uMaHoBun H. Be^opyccKo-öa^TuücKue oraomeHua b peruoHa^bHoM KoHTeKcTe // Be^opyc. ^ypH. Me^gyHap. npaBa u Me^gyHap. oraomeHuu.
11.	^KOHOMUKa u oö^ecrao Be^apycu: guc^po^op^uu u nepcneKTuBbi pa3BuTua. Ha^uoHa^bHHH oTneT o ne^oBenecKoM pa3BuTuu 2004-2005.
12.	^un^oMaTunecKuM BecTHuK.1999.Nr.11.
13.	^un^oMaTunecKuM BecTHuK. 1994. N 15 - 16.
14.	BegoMocTu BepxoBHoH Pagbi,2004Nr.45,crp.499.
15.	www.kmu.gov.ua KoH^e^^ua ogoöpeHa KaöuHeToM muhuctpob YKpauHw.15.08.2010.Nr.1838-p
16.	PoccuHcKaa ra3eTa, 13 oKTaöpa 2007 r.
17.	CTpaTerua Poccuu, Nr. 12, geKaöpb 2006 r
18.	iHocrpaHe^ Nr.4 ot 07.02.2005
19.	Financial Times, 05.09.2007
20.	no^uTuKa, 06.09.2007.
21.	"PoccuHcKaa Bu3Hec-ra3eTa" Nr.762 (29) ot 10 aBrycra 2010 r.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
"^opo^Haa KapTa" no oö^eMy npocTpaHCTBy CBo6ogbi, 6e3onacHocru u npaBocygua. 10 Maa 2005 rog.http://www.kremlin.rWevents/articles/2005/05/87950/152814.shtml EUROBELARUS/U,emp EBponeücKoü TpaHC$opMa^uu.^peg.^o:®:eHua no npuopeTUTeTaM coTpygHunecraa EC-Be^apycb B paMKax Ha^u0Ha.^bH0H uHguKaTUBHoü nporpaMMH u ponu rpa^gaHCKoro o6^ecraa b ero pa3BUTuu.Maü 2010r Coo6^eHue Komucchh. EBponeücKaa no^uTUKa cocegcrBa - CTpaTerunecKuu goKyMeHT. 12.05.2004
http ://www. delrus.cec. eu.int/ru/images/pText_pict/628/NNP%20Communication%20rus.doc. Coo6^eHue EBponeücKoü Komhcchh gna EBponeücKoro nap^aMerna u EBponeücKoro CoBeTa.BocTonHoe napTHepcrBo.Eprocce.nb,3.12.08.C0M(2008)823final) KoH^e^^ua npurpaHUHHoro coTpygHunecraa Pecny6.nuKu Mo.ngoBa Ha 2004-2006 rogw npu^o^eHue Nr. 1 k nocraHoB^eHuro npaBUTe^bcraa Pecny6.nuKu Mo^goBa Nr. 1069 ot 29 ceHra6pa 2004 roga. Monitorul Oficial Nr.182-185 ot 8 oKTa6pa 2004 r. EBponeMcKaa paMonHaa KOHBeH^ua o npurpaHUHHoM coTpygHunecrae TeppuTopua^bH^ix	coo6^ecra	u	B.nacreü.3aK.nroHeHa	Br.
Magpuge21.05.1980.conventions.col.int(CETS 106)
EBponeMcKaa XapTua MecTHoro caMoynpaB^eHua.conventions.col.int(CETS 122) Emerson, Michael, Tassinari, Fabrizio and Marius Vahl: New Agreement between the EU and Russia: Why, What and When?, inCEPS Policy Brief, No. 103, May 2006, page 6 Ibid, Annex 3, page 15
Jarabik B. Moldova between elections. FRIDE policy paper Nr. 16. July 2009. P.4 Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing an European Neighbourhood and partnership
Neighbouring area cooperation between finland and Russia. list of ongoing projects
June 2008Department for Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia Unit for Neighbouring
Area Cooperation. ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
EU-Russia common spaces progress report 2007 Date: March 2008
http://ec.Europa.eu/external_relations/russia/index_en.htm
EU-Russia common spaces progress report 2008 Date: March 2009
http://ec.Europa.eu/external_relations/russia/index_en.htm
EU-Russia common spaces progress report 2009 Date: March 2010
http://ec.Europa.eu/external_relations/russia/index_en.htm
[The Vision 2013 2005: 3]. The Vision 2013. To Make Our Common Area a Better Place to Live and Generate
New Business. 2005. Centre of Expertise in Southeast, Finland
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Eastern Partnership. COM (2008) 823 final. Brussels, 3.12.2008 Polish-Swedish Proposal. Eastern Partnership. 23 May 2008 (www.tepsa.eu/docs/draft_proposal_eastern_partnership.pdf
Cross-Border Cooperation within the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) http://ec.Europa.eu/Europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperati on/enpi-cross-b order/index_en.htm Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument. 2003.
Commission of the European Communities. Brussels. COM (2003) 393 final: http://eur-
lex.Europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ
Paving the Way for a New Neighbourhood Instrument. 2003.
Commission of the European Communities. Brussels. COM (2003) 393 final: http://eur-lex.Europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ
47.	European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.Ukraine.National Indicative Programme 2011-2013
http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/2011_enpi_nip_ukraine_en.pdf
48.	European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.Ukraine.Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_csp_ukraine_en.pdf
49.	European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.Republic of Moldova.National Indicative Programme2011-2013
http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/2011_enp_nip_moldova_en.pdf
50.	European Commission, Communication COM(2007) 160 final to the Council and the European
51.	Parliament, Black Sea Synergy - A New Regional Cooperation Initiative. Brussels, 11.04.2007.
52.	Wider Europe — Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern an http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/com03_104_en.pdf
53.	http://news-ukraine.com.ua/news/109853/
54.	http://www.tiga.by/news/world/2006/12/05/es/
55.	http://www.delblr.ec.Europa.eu/page1365.html
56.	www.Eurobelarus.info/delblr.ec.Europa.eu
57.	www. Pravoby.info/docum09/part18/akt18663/htm
58.	http://www.bsrinterreg.net/programm/_downloads/2005.09.14.1_7_round_projects.zip
59.	SA#01/2010RU www.belinstitute.eu
60.	http://www.enpi-info.eu/countryeast.php?country
61.	www.huskroua-cbc.net
62.	www.kmu.gov.ua KoH^e^^Ha ogoöpeHa KaöuHeTOM mhhhctpob YKpauHw.15.08.2010.Nr.1838-p
63.	http://ec.Europa.eu/external_relations/moldova/index_en.htm
64.	www. russianmission.eu
65.	http://ec.Europa.eu/external_relations/moldova/docs/index_en.htm
66.	http://ec.Europa.eu/world/enp/pdf/country/enpi_cross	-border_coop erati on_strategy_p aper_en.pdf
67.	www.blacksea-cbc.net
68.	http://ec.Europa.eu/comm/world/enp/index_en.htm
69.	http://www.regnum.ru/news/1128051.html#ixzz12MiWXYXG
70.	http://www.regnum.ru/news/1209670.html#ixzz12MhsBGKM
71.	http://www.regnum.ru/news/1293066.html#ixzz 12MpUn9nY
Appendix Nr.1
1. ENPI CBC Black Sea Programme
Total allocation (2007-2013): 17.306 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Romania: South East
Bulgaria: Severoiztochen, Yugoiztochen
Greece: Kentriki Makedonia, Anatoliki Makedonia Thraki
Turkey: Istanbul, Tekirdag, Kocaeli, Zonguldak, Kastamonu, Samsun, Trabzon
Russia: Rostov Oblast, Krasnodar Krai, Adygea republic
Ukraine: Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Sevastopol, Zaporosh'ye and Donetsk Oblasts,
Crimea
Republic, Sevastopol
Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan: the whole country
Managing Authority: Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing, Romania
The strategy of the ENPI-CBC Black Sea Basin programme is coherent with the EU Black Sea
Synergy regional initiative. It will contribute to the Black Sea Synergy cooperation sectors with a clear focus on civil society and local level cross-border cooperation, aiming additionally to foster coherence with other national and trans-national programmes and strategies.
Priorities of the programme:
1.	Cross border support to partnership for economic development based on combined resources:
Strengthening accessibility and connectivity for new intra- regional information, communication, transport and trade links; creation of tourism networks in order to promote joint tourism development initiatives and traditional products; creation of administrative capacity for the design and implementation of local development policies
2.	Networking resources and competencies for environmental protection and conservation:
Strengthening the joint knowledge and information base needed to address common challenges in the environmental protection of river and maritime systems; promoting research, innovation and awareness in the sphere of conservation and environmental protection for protected natural areas; promotion of cooperation initiatives aimed at innovation in technologies and management of solid waste and wastewater management systems
3.	Cultural and educational initiatives for the establishment of a common cultural environment in the basin: Promoting cultural networking and educational exchange in the Black Sea Basin communities.
2.ENPI CBC Estonia - Latvia - Russia Programme
Total allocation: (2007-2013): 47.775 million EUR
Eligible areas:
Latvia: Latgale, Vidzeme; adjoining areas: Riga City and Pieriga Estonia: Kirde-Eesti, Löuna-Eesti, Kesk-Eesti; adjoining areas: Pöhja-Eesti Russia: Leningrad oblast, Pskov oblast, St.-Petersburg City
Managing Authority: Ministry of Regional Development and Local Governments of Latvia
The overall aim of the Programme is to use the potential of the wider border region in order to further its economic development and to attract productive investments for better employment and creation of prosperity.
Priorities:
1.	Socio-economic Development: fostering socio-economic development and encouraging business and entrepreneurship; transport, logistics and communication solutions; tourism development.
2.	Common Challenges: protection of environment and natural resources; preservation and promotion of cultural and historical heritage and support to local traditional skills; improving energy efficiency
3.	Promotion of People to People Cooperation: small scale activities to develop local initiative, increase administrative capacities of local and regional authorities; co-operation in spheres of culture, sports, education, social and health care.
3.	ENPI CBC Lithuania-Poland-Russia Programme
Total allocation (2007-2013): 132.130 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Lithuania: Marjampolis, Taurages and Klaipedos Apskritis; (adjoining regions: Alytus, Kaunas, Telsiai and Siauliai counties)
Poland: Gdansk-Gdynia-Sopot, Gdanski, Elblaski, Olsztynski, Elcki, Bialostocko-Suwalski;
(adjoining regions: Slupski, Bydgoski, Torunsko-Wloclawski, Lomžynski, Ciechanowsko-Plocki, Ostrol^cko-Siedlecki. Those sub regions (NUTSIII) belong to five Polish provinces (NUTSII): Pomorskie, Podlaskie, Warminsko-Mazurskie, Kujawsko-Pomorskie and Mazowieckie Voivodships (regions). Russia: Kaliningrad Oblast
Managing Authority: The Ministry of Regional Development of the Republic of Poland
The Programme intends to develop a zone of shared stability, security and prosperity, involving a significant degree of economic social and political co-operation. The focus will be on joint projects/efforts involving local and regional authorities, SMEs associations, NGOs and the general public. The programme will contribute to building mutual trust and progressive regional economic integration in line with principles of subsidiary and sustainability. Further, it should evolve into a cross-border region of mutual understanding between the neighbours working together to develop or maintain the most important developmental assets of the area, such as natural and cultural heritage and human capital (in particular entrepreneurship). In line with the analysis of the present situation, the assistance shall remove obstacles to effective cross-border co-operation and provide favourable conditions for linking potentials over the national borders and to safeguard good social, cultural and natural environment for the residents, tourists and investors in the Programme area.
Priorities of the programme:
1.	Contributing to solving common problems and challenges: Sustainable use of environment;
Accessibility improvement
2.	Pursuing social, economic and spatial development: tourism development; development of human potential by improvement of social conditions, governance and educational opportunities; increasing competitiveness of SMEs and development of the labour market Horizontal priority dedicated to people-to-people cooperation.
4.	ENPI CBC Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus Programme
Total allocation (2007-2013): 41.737 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Latvia: Latgale Region
Lithuania: Utenos, Vilniaus and Altyaus Apskritis (adjoining regions: Kaunas and
Panevezys Counties - NUTS III)
Belarus: Hrodna and Vitebsk Oblasts (adjoining regions: Minsk and Mogilev Oblasts, Minsk City)
Managing Authority: The Ministry of Interrior of the Republic of Lithuania, Regional Policy Department
The overall strategic goal of the Programme is to enhance the territorial cohesion of the Latvian, Lithuanian and Belarusian border region and secure economic and social welfare and cultural identity of its inhabitants.The ENPI CBC instrument for the Latvian-Lithuanian-Belarusian cross border region shall serve as a instrument to facilitate the sustainable socioeconomic development and cohesion of the border regions, and to secure an attractive living environment and welfare for its inhabitants. Cross border co-operation shall also be utilised to minimise the impact of national borders and contribute towards improved partnership and better cooperation of the three neighbouring countries.
Priorities of the programme:
1.	Promoting sustainable economic and social development: By its Priority 1 this Programme strives to encourage co-operation by connecting people, organisations of regions and sectors, for creating the opportunity to develop the region's strengths and help the achievement of the first Objective of the ENPI Strategy Paper.
2.	Addressing common challenges: By its Priority 2 this Programme is aiming to improve environmental conditions, solve various issues in social, educational and health spheres and help the achievement of the second objective of ENPI Strategy Paper.
5.	ENPI CBC Poland-Belarus-Ukraine Programme
Total allocation: 186.201 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Poland: Bialostocko-suwalski, Ostrolecko-siedlecki, Bialskopodlaski, Chelmsko-zamojski, Krosniensko-przemyski (adjoining regions: Lubelski, Rzeszowsko-tarnobrzeski, Lomzynski)
Belarus: Hrodna and Brest oblats, Eastern part of Minsk oblast [Miadel, Vileika, Molodechno, Volozhin, Stolbtsy, Niesvizh and Kletsk districts] (adjoining regions: eastern part of Minsk Oblast, Gomel Oblast)
Ukraine: Volynska, Lvivska and Zakarpatska Oblasts Oblasts (adjoining regions: Rivnenska,Ternopilska Oblasts and Ivano-Frankivska Oblasts)
Managing Authority: The Ministry of Regional Development of the Republic of Poland
The aim of the ENPI-CBC PL-BY-UA Programme is to improve the economic, social and environmental situation in the Programme area, in the context of safe and secure borders, through increased contact between partners on both sides of the borders
Priorities of the programme:
1.	Increasing competitiveness of the border area: Better conditions for entrepreneurship; tourism development and improving access to the region.
2.	Improving the quality of life: Natural environment protection in the borderland and efficient and secure borders.
3.	Networking and people-to-people cooperation: Regional and local cross-border cooperation capacity building and local communities' initiatives.
6.	ENPI CBC Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine Programme
Total allocation: 68.638 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Hungary: Szabolcs-Szatmar-Bereg (adjoining region: Borsod-Abauj-Zemplen) Slovakia: Košicky, Prešovsky
Romania: Maramure§, Satu-Mare (adjoining region: Suceava) Ukraine: Zakarpatska, Ivano-Frankivska, (adjoining region: Chernivetska)
The participation of Suceava and Chernivetska is restricted (e.g. no Lead partner from the regions, participation in soft projects etc.)
Managing Authority: The National Development Agency in Hungary The overall objective of the programme, as agreed by all countries participating is as follows: 'to intensify and deepen the cooperation in an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable way between Zakarpatska, Ivano-Frankivska and Chernivetska regions of Ukraine and eligible and adjacent areas of Hungary, Romania and Slovakia'. Priorities of the programme:
1.	Promote economic and social development: Harmonised development of tourism; to create better conditions for SME's and business development
2.	Enhance environmental quality: Environmental protection, sustainable use and management of natural resources; emergency preparedness
3.	Increase border efficiency: Improvement of border-crossing transport infrastructure and equipment at border controls
4.	Support people to people cooperation: Institutional cooperation; small scale "people to people" Cooperation.
7.	ENPI CBC Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova Programme Total allocation (2007-2013): 126. 718 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Romania: Botosani, Suceava, Iasi, Vaslui, Galati, Tulcea Tulcea (adjoining region1: Braila)
Ukraine: Chernivetska, Odesska Oblasts (adjoining regions: Ivano-Frankivska, Ternopilska, Khmelnitska and Vinnitska Oblasts) Republic of Moldova: the whole country Managing Authority: The Ministry of Development, Public Works and Housing, Romania The aim of the ENPI-CBC Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova Programme is to improve the economic, social and environmental situation in the Programme area, in the context of safe and secure borders, through increased contact of partners on both sides of the borders.
Priorities of the programme:
1.	Towards a more competitive border economy, concentrating on improving the economic performance of the border area through the diversification and modernisation, in a sustainable manner, of the border economy.
2.	Environmental challenges and emergency preparedness supporting long term solutions to the environmental problems faced by the border areas, particularly those associated with environmental emergencies where a co-ordinated approach is essential
3.	People to people co-operation promoting greater interaction between people and communities living in the border areas.
The adjoining regions will have access to all priorities of the Programme, but only soft projects may be implemented in these areas.
8.	ENPI CBC South East Finland - Russia Programme Total allocation: (2007-2013): 36.185 million EUR Eligible regions:
Finland: South Karelia, Kymenlaakso, South Savo; adjoining areas: Northern Savo, Päijät-Häme, Itä-Uusimaa
Russia: Leningrad Oblast with St Petersburg; adjoining areas: Republic of Karelia Managing Authority: Regional Council of South Karelia, Finland The strategic objective of the programme is to promote the position of the programme area as an integrated economic zone and a centre for transportation and logistics in order to strengthen its competitiveness and attractiveness to investors, and to improve the state of the
environment and the standard of living and welfare of its citizens. The programme will contribute to the transfer of competence and the flow of goods, passengers and information, as well as the diffusion of innovation over the border, and provide ground for common actions to improve the environment.
Priorities:
1.	Economic development: to strengthen local and regional sustainable economic development in the programme area - SME and business development, incl. labour market development; trade and investment promotion; transport and logistics; research and education; innovations and technology; energy cooperation; tourism industry; rural development.
2.	Common challenges - border-crossing and the environment:
Efficient and secure borders - to develop transport links and improve the operations of the border crossing points; effective (facilitating bona fide cross-border traffic of persons and legitimate trade and transit) and secure border management (preventing illegal bordercrossing and illegitimate trade and transit, and combating organised crime, trafficking, and contraband); strengthening of maritime search and rescue services in the area; supporting activities that promote emergency preparedness and cooperation between local and regional authorities and organisations in order to minimize risks.
Environment and nature protection - sustainable waste management; improve infrastructure for waste management and waste water treatment; protection of natural heritage
3.	Social development and civic society: to strengthen people-to-people and civic society contacts at regional and local levels in the educational, cultural, and other similar spheres, as well as to enhance cross-border contacts between civic society groups and NGOs in view of promoting local governance and mutual understanding.
9. ENPI-CBC Baltic Sea Region Programme
Total allocation (2007-2013): 23 million EUR (for the benefit of the eligible regions in Russia and Belarus)
Eligible regions:
The whole country of Belarus; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Latvia; Lithuania; Norway; Poland and Sweden
Germany: the States (Länder) of Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg- Vorpommern, Schleswig-Holstein and Niedersachsen (only NUTS II area Regierungs-bezirk Lüneburg)
Russia: St Petersburg and the surrounding Leningrad Oblast, Republic of Karelia, the Oblasts of Kaliningrad, Murmansk, Novgorod and Pskov; for projects addressing the Barents Region, also co-operation with Archangelsk Oblast, Komi Republic and Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug is envisaged.
Managing Authority: Investitionsbank Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) Programme 2007-2013 has been designed under the European Community's territorial cooperation objective. It is built on the experience of its two predecessor programmes supporting transnational cooperation in the Baltic Sea region under the Community Initiatives "INTERREG IIC" (1997-1999) and "INTERREG III B Neighbourhood Programme" (2000-2006). The overarching strategic objective of the Baltic Sea Region Programme is to strengthen the development towards a sustainable, competitive and territorially integrated Baltic Sea region by connecting potentials over the borders.
Priorities of the programme:
1. Fostering of innovations across the BSR: To advance innovation-based regional development of the BSR though the support of the innovation sources and their links to SMEs, facilitation of transnational transfer of technology and knowledge and strengthening the societal foundations for absorption of new knowledge.
2.	Internal and External Accessibility of the BSR: To increase the area's external and internal accessibility though development of transnational solutions diminishing the functional barriers to diffusion of innovation and to traffic flows.
3.	Management of the Baltic Sea as a Common Resource: To improve the management of the Baltic Sea resources in order to achieve its better environmental state.
4.	Attractive and Competitive Cities and Regions: To ensure co-operation of metropolitan regions, cities and rural areas to share and make use of common potential.
10.	ENPI CBC Karelia Programme
Total allocation: (2007-2013): 23.203 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Finland: Kainuu, Northern Ostrobothnia, North Karelia; adjoining areas: Lapland, Northern Savo
Russia: Republic of Karelia; adjoining areas: Murmansk Oblast, Archangelsk Oblast, Leningrad Oblast and St. Petersburg
Managing Authority: Council of Oulu Region, Finland
The strategic objective of the Programme is to increase well-being in the programme area through cross-border cooperation.
Priorities:
1.	Economic development: to strengthen cross-border economic co-operation and increase cross-border business; to improve conditions for cross-border economic cooperation. The cornerstones of economic co-operation in the programme area are the forest and wood sectors, and the tourism sector.
2.	Quality of life: clean and pleasant environment; planning systems and service structures supporting cross border co-operation; attitude education and youth - building material for future co-operation; health and well-being - common challenges; culture; civic organization co-operation.
11.	ENPI CBC Kolarctic Programme
Total allocation: (2007-2013): 28.241 million EUR
Eligible regions:
Finland: Lappi; adjoining areas: Oulu Region Sweden: Norrboten; adjoining areas: Västerbotten Norway: Finnmark, Troms, Nordland
Russia: Murmansk, Archangelsk, Nenets; adjoining areas: Republic of Karelia, Leningrad Oblast
Managing Authority: Regional Council of Lapland, Finland
The strategic objective of the Programme is to reduce the periphery of the countries' border regions and its related problems as well as to promote multilateral cross-border cooperation. The Programme aims to help the regions in the Programme area to develop their cross-border economic, social and environmental potential, which shall be achieved by supporting innovative cross-border activities, accessibility, and the sustainable development of natural resources, communities and cultural heritage.
Priorities:
1. Economic and social development: to develop SME and business co-operation; to promote trade; to develop sustainable transport, logistics and communication systems; to implement educational and research activities; to ensure the quality of public and private services; to use innovations and new technology; to enhance the use of renewable sources of energy and active energy saving; to develop energy co-operation; to support the development of traditional ways of living; to develop labour markets and to support entrepreneurship; to exchange best practices in rural development, municipal services and special planning
2.	Common challenges: border-crossing and the environment - to support health and social welfare; to improve security; to prevent accidents and environmental risks (incl. emergency preparedness, radiation safety, marine pollution risks); to improve border crossing efficiency (incl. small scale infrastructure, harmonisation of border crossing procedures and increase of transparency); education and research
3.	People-to-people co-operation and identity building: strengthen people-to-people and civil society contacts at the local level. Actions in the educational, cultural and art spheres as well as enhanced cross-border contacts between civil society groups and NGOs aimed at promoting local governance and mutual understanding.
Theme	Objective	Area of Action	Initiatives	Partner response-ble for the initiative	Implementing institution &contact details	Indicators	Implementation period	Funding source, if applicable
1. Monitoring of migration flows	lAnalysingthemi-gration flow in order to determine the needs and necessities	A. Preparatory actions	a. Migration profile	EC, ETF	EU Delegation in Chisinau -	Ms Ghenadie Barba, implementing parnter IOM Chisinau -	Ms Ghenadie Cretu (gcretu@iom.md)	Set of the benchmarks to monitor the impact of the mobility partnership on the socio-economic development of the country.	The period of the mobility partnership. Starting in 2010.	EC ENPI 2008
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	I Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	A. Legal migration	a. technical training workshop on residence permit and work permit legislation	EL, MD	Ministry of Interior -Ms Rania STAVROPOULOU Head of Section of Migration Policy Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina Buracec, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova: Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: (moldovacarolinaiSgmail.com) Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel/fax: (373 22) 277251 email:migrare@migrare.gov.md	The programme shall include, inter alia, quantitative indicators (number of requests, number of participants, number of activities carried out) as well as qualitative indicators (satisfaction level of trainees, cost effectiveness, evaluation of the training courses)	first semester of 2010	
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	1. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	A.Legal migration	b. capacity building in the area of residence of foreigners	HU,MD	Office of Immigration and Nationality, Dr. Daniel Horväth (horvath.daniel@bah.b-m.hu, 00-36-1-463- 4840,fax: 00-36-1-463-9108) Mr. Baläzs Koväcs (case worker of our Unit) Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova: Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: moldovacarolina@gmail.com Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel/fax: (373 22) 277251 email:migrare@migrare.gov.md	One 3-day seminar on institutional management for 20 middle or higher rank officials; 1-2 study visits for 8-8 particiapnts per trip, 4 working days.	2010 (no exact implementation period yet forseen, problem with financing)	National funds -misinterpretatio n, HU is going to porpose to MO "EC TAI EX"
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	1. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	A. Legal migration	c. training and expert support for residence / work permit, exchange of knowledge, experiences and best practices	CY, MD	Civil Registry and Migration Department Ministry of Interior CY1457-Nicosia Republic of Cyprus Ms Panagiota Nathanael Administrative Officer Tel.+357 22 804498 Fax. +357 22 804598 Email pnathanael@crmd.moi.gov.cy Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina Buracec, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova: Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: moldovacarolina@gmail.com	2 study visits in Cyprus, 2 working days each, up to 5 participants each visit, immigration system, procedures, practices, experiences	2010 (no exact implementation period yet forseen)	National funds
"O
■a
n s
a
Z k»
o o
					Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel/fax: (373 22) 277251 email:migrare@migrare.gov.md			
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	1. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	B. Illegal migration	b. training to police officers in combating illegal migration postponed	SK,MD	Bureau of Border and Alien Police of the Ministry of Interior, National Unit Combating Illegal Migration Vajnorskä 25, 812 72 Bratislava, Slovak Republic martin.borza@minv.sk katarina.fischerova@minv.sk Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova : Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: moldovacarolina@gmail.com Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel/fax: (373 22) 277251 email:migrare@migrare.gov.md Security and Intelligence Service: Mr. IgorGorodetki, Expert in combating illegal migration, Tel. +373 22 239404; +373 22 239651; fax. +373 22 226278; email: re@sis.md; Elena.postolachi@gmail.com Border Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md Mr Averian Borga, Head of Section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax. +373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md	Seminar in Moldova for operative search unit (1-2 days)	2010 (no exact implementation period yet forseen)	The national budget
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	1. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	C. Sharing of knowledge and best practices	a. study visits	HU,MD	a) Office of Immigration and Nationality, Dr. Daniel Horväth (horvath.daniel@bah.b-m.hu, 00-36-1-463- 4840, fax: 00-36-1-463-9108) Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova: Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: moldovacarolina@gmail.com Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel/fax: (373 22) 277251 email:migrare@migrare.gov.md	a)	1 interview and assessment techniques seminar; b)	1 seminar on refugee reception facility management c)1-2	study visits on refugee reception facility management Maximum number of participants of the interview and assessment techniques seminar: 16 persons. Maximum number of participants of the seminar regarding refugee reception facility management: 16 persons, length of the seminar: 5 working days with 2 HU lecturers Number of participants on the study visit: 6-8 persons. Comment: 50 % of the participants should be selected from those who attended the seminar; proposed length of the study trip: 4 days.	a) September 2010 b) May-June 2010 ; c) September-October 2010	National budget
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	1. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	C. Sharing of knowledge and best practices	d. study visits postponed	SK, MD	Migration Office of the Ministry of Interior, Pivonkova 6, 812 72 Bratislava, Slovak Republic Tel.+421 2 48 254106/251 /257 Fax:+ 421 2 43414 759 achbergt@minv.sk / petra.achbergerova@minv.sk timurhan@minv.sk Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova : Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: moldovacarolina@gmail.com Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel/fax: (373 22) 277251 email:migrare@migrare.gov.md Border Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md Mr Averian Borga, Head of Section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax. +373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md Security and Intelligence Service: Mr. Igor Gorodetki, Expert in combating illegal migration, Tel. +373 22 239404; +373 22 239651; fax. +373 22 226278; email: re@sis.md; Elena.postolachi@gmail.com	2 study visits for 3 Moldovan asylum officers (3 days).	2010 (communication about the implementation has started with MO few days ago; -probably second half of 2010)	national budget
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	1. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	C. Sharing of knowledge and best practices	b. study visits	SI, MD	Ministry of Interior Dominika Marolt Maver Dominika.marolt-maver@gov.si +386 31 359 043 Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova: Migration Policy Directorate: Mr. Veaceslav ClRLIG, Head of Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: (cirlig.slav@yahoo.com) Mr. Panuta lurie, Head of division for monitoring and controlling the Centre for Combating trafficking of human beings (we were informed that the contact persons from the Moldovan side has been changed, SI asked MDA to make the official notification of new contact persons to the European Commission. Till the official notification of new contact persons we cannot continue with the implementation of SI project.	SI is offering expert support within the projects of "leading MS". 3 day Study visit for (3) Moldovan migration and asylum officers in the Directorate for Migration and Integration, MOI- administrative procedures and reception facilities.	First half of 2010.	National budget
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	7. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	F. Documents security	a. technical assistance and training in the area of document security and fraud	PT	this action/initiative should be seen in the framework of initiative X 1 A. a.	SEF - Service des Etrangers et des Frontieres | Immigration and Borders Service gric@sef.pt Tel.+351 21 423 6363 Border Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md	To be started after a bilateral agreement is signed	National budget
o
NJ
						Mr Averian Borga, Head of Section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax. +373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md		
II. Consolidation of the National Migration Management System	1. Strengthening the institutional capacities of the Moldovan institutions dealing with migration aspects	F. Documents security	b. "Strengthening Capacities and Cooperation in the identification of Forged and Falsified Travel Documents at the Republic of Moldova-Romania border"	HU,PL,CZ, RO	ICMPD On behalf of HU: National Police Headquarters Agnes Kertesz kertesza@orfk.police.hu On behalf of PL: Border Guard Headquarters Ms. Wanda Koziura wanda.koziura@strazgraniczna.pl +48 22 500 40 94 On behalf of RO: Roxana NEG01-NITA General Directorate of European Affairs and International Relations M.I.A.R. tel.:+4021.206.09.36 fax:+4021.314.74.22 E-mail: pro.eu@mira.gov.ro Unit for Policy, International Relations and Information on Countries of Origin Department for Asylum and Migration Policy (OAMP) Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic Nad Stolou 3 P.O.BOX 21/OAM 170 34 Prague7 Czech Republic Tel.: +420974 832 472 Fax: +420974 833 530 E-mail: zacios@mvcr.cz Border Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md Mr Averian Borga, Head of Section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax.+373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova: Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: moldovacarolina@gmail.com Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel/fax: (373 22) 277251 email:migrare@migrare.gov.md	Capacity-building of the Moldovan authorities acting in the areas of border management, migration and consular issues. Cooperation will cover areas, such as the identification of forged and falsified travel documents and the promotion of cooperation and information exchange between the respective authorities. In the framework of the project conferences, seminars, study visits and the exchange of best practices will take place.	18 months (started in April 2009) ongoing	National budget
o
uu
					Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration: Mr.Oleg Nica - Head of the division, Juridical and consular relations directorate. Tel. (373 22) 201 046; e-mail oleg.nica@mfa.md			
III. Information on legal migration and assistance for returning migrants	1. Informing potential migrants about ways of legal migration to the European Union and legal employment in the Member States, as well as about the risks of illegal migration, and assistance for returning migrants.	A. Strengthening the Republic of Moldova capacity to manage labour and return migration	a. Providing information on routes for legal migration to the EU, legal employment in the EU Member States, dangers and negative effects of illegal migration as well as return and reintegration, with active participation of interested MS	SE, MD HU, PL, DE, CY, EL, RO, IT, BG, LT, CZ, SK (activities ofthe project described in the Terms of Reference ofthe Project at www.legal- in.eu)	Swedish Public Employment Service and Moldovan NES (ANOFM) Swedish PES Per Lindberg Representative of Swedish Public Employment Service in Moldova 77 Vlaicu Parcalab str, entrance 6, Chiinu, MD 2012 Tel/Fax:+ 373 22 21 3142 E-mail: per.lindberg@legal-in.eu Web: www.legal-in.eu Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head ofthe migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com	1.	Train 200 (out of a total 249) officers in how the EURES system Works, rules, homepage etc. Make a random sample of 20 officers and perform a test. 2.	Interviews and enquires on how satisfied job seekers and employers are with the information given, performed by independent Institutions. 3.	Focus groups, where stakeholders (mainly private and public employers) evaluate the information activities carried out by the project 4.	Number of information activities carried out 5.	Number of people employed in Moldova and the Member Status	Jan 2009- Dec 2011	
III. Information on legal migration and assistance for returning migrants	1. Informing potential migrants about ways of legal migration to the European Union and legal employment in the Member States, as well as about the risks of illegal migration, and assistance for returning migrants.	C. On-line information	a. website on legal migration	EL, MD	The Ministry of Interior will be the responsible authority for the supervision of the procedures involved - Ms Rania STAVROPOULOU tlf.+30 210 3741268/ 62 (Rania) Head of Section of Migration Policy Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head ofthe migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com	The programme shall include, inter alia, quantitative indicators (number of visitors, number of uploads) as well as qualitative indicators (level of satisfaction of visitors, evaluation of the information provided etc)	first semester of 2010	
III. Information on legal migration and assistance for returning migrants	1. Informing potential migrants about ways of legal migration to the European Union and legal employment in the Member States, as well as about the risks of illegal migration, and assistance for returning migrants.	D.Financial services for projects in Moldova	a.	DE, MD	1. DEG -Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungs-<gesellschaft http://www.deginvest.de and other European development finance institutions http://www.edfi.be/2. Credit insurance and related services: http://www.eulergroup.com/en/Ministry of Economy :Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head ofthe migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com	Financing of viable projects in Moldova with a local private sponsor	2009 answer pending	National budget
o
IV. Labour migration schemes	7. Offering better access to Member States labour markets	A. Horizontal support	a. Exchange of information on a systematic basis with Moldovan "focal points" about private employment agencies involved in labour mobility between the two countries.	CY, MD	PES Cyprus 9 klimentos St, 1480 Nicosia Cyprus Mr Demetris Georg iou Labour Officer dgeorgiou@dl.mlsi.gov.cy tel:+357 22400812 fax: +357 22400809 Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com	Exchange of information, organize a visit to select private employment agencies in Cyprus	2009-2010 ongoing 1.	Moldovan Working Group (MWG) to Cyprus (December 2009 which included the discussion about migration and employment services) 2.	MWG to Moldova (2nd quarter 2010) 3.	MWG to Cyprus (3rd quarter 2010)	National Funds -CY
IV. Labour migration schemes	1. Offering better access to Member States labour markets	A. Horizontal support	b. Preparation of informational material on the issues of permits of entry, residence and employment in the Republic of Cyprus.	CY, MD	Ministry of Interior CY1453 - Lefkosia Cyprus Ms. Agni Papageorgiou Administrative Officer Tel: + 357 22 867722 Fax: + 357 22 867838 email: apapageorgiou@moi.gov.cy Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com	Draw up a Guide providing information on legal migration, procedures, and relevant employment issues. 6000 copies, two leaflets 3000 copies each	2010 (no exact implementation period yet forseen)	National Budget -CY
IV. Labour migration schemes	1. Offering better access to Member States labour markets	A. Horizontal support	c. circular migration projects which include support for labor management and reintegration of returning migrants	CY, MD	PES Cyprus 9 klimentos St, 1480 Nicosia Cyprus Mr Demetris Georgiou Labour Officer dgeorgiou@dl.mlsi.gov.cy tel: +357 22400820 fax:+35722400809 Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com	Establishment of a Moldova Cyprus Working Group, implement study visits, up to 3 persons per visit, include activities in different relevant areas, expertise and knowledge sharing (implemented under the SPES project)	2009-2011 ongoing 1a. Meeting in Moldova (September 2009) 1 b. Moldovan Working Group (MWG) to Cyprus (December 2009 which included the discussion about migration and employment services). The discussion / information exchange induded the following: -Theoperation and licensing system of private employment agencies in Cyprus and Moldova. - Problems arising	National Budget -CY with a contribution from the SPES project
o Ln
							from the operation / cooperation of private employment agencies involved in labour mobility between the two countries. -Exchange of information on the licensing status of the private employment agencies involved in labour mobility between the two countries. -Appointment of contact persons and exchange of information on the channels that can provide data about the above agencies. 2.	MWG to Moldova (2nd quarter 2010) 3.	MWG to Cyprus (3rd quarter 2010)	
IV. Labour migration schemes	1. Offering better access to Member States labour markets	B. Bilateral agreements	Revision of the Agreement on the Regulation of Labour Migration signed in the 2003	IT, MD	Torlino Gerardo [mailto:GTorlino@lavoro.gov.it]	Signature of the Revision Agreement. Results achieved so far: -	initiation of talks -	number of acquaintance visits -	number of consultations and exchange of legislation -	number of negotiation rounds	2010 ongoing, next consultation May 2010, possible signature at the end of 2010.	
IV. Labour migration schemes	1. Offering better access to Member States labour markets	B. Bilateral agreements	a. Agreement on the Regulation of Labour Migration	BG, MD		initiation of talks number of acquaintance visits number of consultations and exchange of legislation number of negotiation rounds approval of the final text and signing	Haven't started. Expected to be fulfilled in 2010-2011	
V. Voluntary return and reintegration schemes	1. Promoting the voluntary return of migrants, notably highly-skilled migrants, in order to counteract the brain drain	A. Support for voluntary return projects	a. Support for voluntary return projects	CZ, MD	Ministry of Interior dept. of Asylum and Migration Policy Nad Štolou 3 Prague 7 zacios@mvcr.cz IOM CR Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com	1)	contribute to the sustainable reintegration of Moldovan citizens currently residing in the Czech Republic and willing to return, 2)	contribute to an enhanced use of more efficient transfer channels and to more productive investment of remittances by migrants and their families	2009-June 2010 ongoing	CZ (Development Co-operation Programme of the Mol)
o
CT1
VI. Diaspora consolidation and co-development	1. Strengthening the link of the Moldovan communities abroad with their home-country and promoting co-development projects	A. Horizontal Support	a. Strengthen the development dimension of migration	EC				ENPI 2008
VI. Diaspora consolidation and co-development	1. Strengthening the link of the Moldovan communities abroad with their home-country and promoting co-development projects	A. Horizontal Support	b. Strengthening the activities of the Information Centres for the Moldovan migrants in the Moldovan diplomatic missions ?	MD	Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration: Mr. Oleg Nica - Head of the division, Juridical and consular relations directorate. Tel. (373 22) 201 046; e-mail oleg.nica@mfa.md		?	
VII. Social protection of migrants and their families	1. Promoting the transfer of social security benefits and addressing the social dimension of migration in the sending country.	A. Administrative capacity of the Republic of Moldova	a. Strengthening the administrative capacity of the authorities of the Republic of Moldova in relation to transfers of social security benefits	RO, MD	Ministry of Labour, Family and Equal Opportunities Magda Filip, Director, Directorate for External Relations and International Organisations drici@mmssf.ro + 4021 312 13 17 Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family : Mrs. Laura Grecu, Director of the Social Insurance Policies Division; Tel.+373 22 731506 Email: laura.grecu@mpsfc.gov.md	01.30 Moldavian civil servants within the Ministry of Social Protection, Family and Child from Republic of Moldavia, National House of Social Insurances from Republic of Moldavia trained;02.A model project of bilateral agreement in the field of social security in English, French, Spanish and German;03.A model project of Administrative Arrangement for the implementation of the agreement in the field of social security;04.The forms for the implementation of the bilateral agreement in the field of social security;05. Explanatory guide of the bilateral social security agreement;06.Report of analysis on the social insurance legislation;07. Explicatory guide of Regulation 1408/71 and Regulation 883/2004.	sept 2009 - dec 2010 ongoing	State budget, implemented by ILO
VII. Social protection of migrants and their families	1. Promoting the transfer of social security benefits and addressing the social dimension of migration in the sending country.	B. Social dimension of migration	a. Agreement between Romania and Republic of Moldova on social security	RO, MD	Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Protection Magda Filip, Director, Directorate for External Relations and International Organisations drici@mmssf.ro + 4021 312 13 17 Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family : Mrs. Laura Grecu, Director of the Social Insurance Policies Division; Tel.+373 22 731506 Email: laura.grecu@mpsfc.gov.md	Agreement between Romania and Republic of Moldova on social security.	The Agreement between Romania and Republic of Moldova on social security has been agreed. Awaiting signature of MD side - probably by the end 2010	
o
VII. Social protection of migrants and their families	1. Promoting the transfer of social security benefits and addressing the social dimension of migration in the sending country.	B. Social dimension of migration	b. The Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Cyprus is currently preparing a Bilateral Agreement on Social Security Transfer Arrangement with Moldova.	CY, MD	The Social Insurance Department, Mr. Loukas Kerimis lkerimis@sid.mlsi.gov.cy tel:+35722401875 fax: +35722401664 Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family: Mrs. Laura Grecu, Director of the Social Insurance Policies Division; Tel. +373 22 269339 Email: laura.grecu@mpsfc.gov.md		2009-2011	
VII. Social protection of migrants and their families	1. Promoting the transfer of social security benefits and addressing the social dimension of migration in the sending country.	B. Social dimension of migration	c. Building two Daily Centres to provide home care and other socio-medical services for people with mental and physical disabilities and long-term ill patients. Schooling of nurses and volunteers.	CZ, MD	CZ - Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, Na Poricnfm prävu 1, 128 01 Praha 2, e-mail: eva.nemeckova@mpsv.cz Association "Homecare"Fiscal Code: 4137201 OZelinschi str.nr. 37, ap.44, Chisinau Contact person:Tamara Adasan, directorE-mail: tamaramanager@yahoo.comtel. +373 688 14 222		2007-2011	CZ (development cooperation programme)
VIII. Development of the Moldovan labour market	1. Optimizing the labour market of the Republic of Moldova, promoting student and professional exchanges and improving the economic conditions for returning migrants	B. Strengthening the capacity of higher education institutions	a. Strengthening the development dimension of migration	EC, MD	Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov .md buracec@gmail.com EC Delegation in Chisinau		to be contracted in 2009	ENPI 2008
VIII. Development of the Moldovan labour market	1. Optimizing the labour market of the Republic of Moldova, promoting student and professional exchanges and improving the economic conditions for returning migrants	B. Strengthening the capacity of higher education institutions	b. Promotion of the quality of the institutions of higher education and the university exchanges	MD 7	Ministry of Education: Mrs. Ludmila Pavlov, Head of the International Relations and European Integration Division, Tel. +373 22 233474; Fax.+373 22 233515 Email: international@edu.md		Ongoing	
o oo
VIII. Development of the Moldovan labour market	1. Optimizing the labour market of the Republic of Moldova, promoting student and professional exchanges and improving the economic conditions for returning migrants	C. Labour market matching	a. Further promotion of the participation of Moldovan students and researchers in the Erasmus Mundus exchange programme	EC, MD	Ministry of Education: Mrs. Ludmila Pavlov, Head of the International Relations and European Integration Division, Tel. +373 22 233474; Fax. +373 22 233515 Email: international@edu.md		Ongoing	n.a.
VIII. Development of the Moldovan labour market	1. Optimizing the labour market of the Republic of Moldova, promoting student and professional exchanges and improving the economic conditions for returning migrants	C. Labour market matching	b. Scholarships and other facilities offered to students from the Republic of Moldova	RO	Ministry of Education, Research and Inovation of Romania Directorate General European Affairs and External Relations, director general Luminita Matei luminita.matei@medu.edu.ro	For the scholar year 2009-2010 Romania has allocated for Moldovan citizens approx. 3,590 scholarship enrolments, at pre-universitary, universitary and post-universitary level, with two main degrees of financial aid. Number of citizens from the Republic of Moldova benefitting from scholarships.	Academic year 2009/2010.	RO national budget.
VIII. Development of the Moldovan labour market	1. Optimizing the labour market of the Republic of Moldova, promoting student and professional exchanges and improving the economic conditions for returning migrants	C. Labour market matching	c. Bilateral projects in the field of small and medium sized enterprises, promoting the creation of job opportunities in the field of tourism and rural development	RO, MD	Ministerul pentru Intreprinderi Mici $ i Mijlocii, Comert, Turism $i Profesii Liberale - Romania $i institufia omoloaga din R. Moldova Ministry of Economy: Ms. Ecaterina BURACEC, Head of the migration policy directorate, Tel: (373 22) 250-692; 250-693; 250-692, e-mail: buracec@mec.gov.md buracec@gmail.com		?	
VIII. Development of the Moldovan labour market	1. Optimizing the labour market of the Republic of Moldova, promoting student and professional exchanges and improving the economic conditions for returning migrants	D. Recognition of skills and qualifications	a. Promotion of recognition of skills and qualifications	All Signatories ETF MD	Ministry of Education: Mrs. Ludmila Pavlov, Head of the International Relations and European Integration Division, Tel. +373 22 233474; Fax. +373 22 233515 Email: international@edu.md	a)	a methodology for comparing and assessing competence of adult workers is in place; b)	a methodology for validating prior learning is in place; c)	forms of recognising beyond traditional certification are discussed between Government and Social Partners.	Ongoing	ETF budget
o
ix)
IX. Visa and readmission	1. Further strengthening the dialogue and cooperation on visa issues and readmission	A. Enlargement of the Common Visa Application Centre in Chi$inau by interested Member States	a.	HU, MD	Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Zsofia Gyöngyös zsgyongyos@kum.hu 0036 1 458 3620 Now is in charge of this project Pinter Mariann [MPinter@kum.hu] tlf. 0036 1 458 14 72 Hungarian ambassy in Moldova responsible for this project ANDRAS BRETT (Common visa application centre) Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration: Mr. Oleg Nica - Head of the division, Juridical and consular relations directorate. Tel. (373 22) 201 046; e-mail oleg.nica@mfa.md	Indicators: number of Schengen States represented by Hungary (through the Common Visa Application Centre within the Embassy of the Republic of Hungary) in Chisinau Results achieved so far: Luxembourg is represented at the Centre from 1 June 2009, Finland and Belgium joined on 1 October 2009, Greece and the Netherlands on 1 January 2010, thus visas are currently issued on behalf of 12 Member States. Negotiations on concluding representation agreements are ongoing with Norway, Switzerland, Slovakia and non-EU member Croatia.	Ongoing (throughout the lifetime of the Mobility Partnership)	HU + visa fees
IX. Visa and readmission	1. Further strengthening the dialogue and cooperation on visa issues and readmission	B. Common Visa Application Centre	a. Cyprus has expressed an interest to participate in the Common Visa Application Centre inChisinau.The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is examining the matter with the respective Hungarian Ministry.	CY, HU, MD	Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cyprus Director of Consular Affairs/ Schengen Division 00357 22401124 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration: Mr.Oleg Nica - Head of the division, Juridical and consular relations directorate. Tel. (373 22) 201 046; e-mail oleg.nica@mfa.md		2009-11	National Budget
X. Cooperation in border management, identity and travel documents, fight against illegal/irregular migration and trafficking in human beings	1. Fighting irregular migration and the trafficking in human beings	A. Horizontal support	a. Bilateral agreement between the competent authorities of both countries for cooperation in the field of exchange of information, technical assistance and training in the areas of document security and fraud, border control and trafficking in human beings	PT, MD	SEF - Service des Etrangers et des Frontieres | Immigration and Borders Servicegric@sef.ptTel. +351 21 423 6363 Border Guard Service of the Republic of MoldovaMr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office,Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .mdMr Averian Borga, Head of Section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQTel. +373 22 259642Fax. +373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md	Exploratory bilateral contacts between the two institutions are going on. The Border Guard Service of Moldova is analyzing some amendments suggested by Portuguese authorities in the draft protocol.	2009ongoing	n.a.
X. Cooperation in border management, identity and travel documents, fight against illegal/irregular migration and trafficking in human beings	7. Fighting irregular migration and the trafficking in human beings	A. Horizontal support	b. Continuation of the support for the programme to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings and to assist the victims of smuggling	FR, MD	Border Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md Mr Averian Borga, Head of Section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax. +373 22 259651 rel .int@border.gov.md Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova : Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs Carolina Miscoi, Head of Division, tel: (373 22) 277488; e-mail: moldovacarolina@gmail.com) Mrs Olesea Cotoman, consultant, Analysis and Prognosis Division tel/fax:+ 373 22 277 252, email:migrare@migrare.gov.md Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family Mrs. Laura Grecu, Director of the Social Insurance Policies Division; Tel.+373 22 731506 Email: laura.grecu@mpsfc.gov.md Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration: Mr. Oleg Nica- Head of the division, Juridical and consular relations directorate. Tel. (373 22) 201 046; e-mail oleg.nica@mfa.md		To be started	
X. Cooperation in border management, identity and travel documents, fight against illegal/irregular migration and trafficking in human beings	1. Fighting irregular migration and the trafficking in human beings	A. Horizontal support	c. The steady improvement of border management, and cooperate with Frontex on the implementation of the operational arrangement they mutually agreed to conclude, which would cover activities in the field of information exchange and risk analysis, training, research and development, coordination of joint operational measures, an active discussion on the	FRONTEX, MD	Border Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md Mr Averian Borga, Head of Section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax. +373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md		Ongoing	
			improvement of technical equipment and technological upgrading at the borders, development of best practices as well as improving the operational interoperability between the border guard organisations of the EU Member States and the Republic of Moldova					
X. Cooperation in border management, identity and travel documents, fight against illegal/irregular migration and trafficking in human beings	1. Fighting irregular migration and the trafficking in human beings	D. Border Management	a. Bilateral agreement between the competent authorities of both countries for cooperation in the field of exchange of information, expertise and visits in the area of trafficking of human beings postponed	CY, MD	Ministry of Interior CY1453 - Lefkosia Cyprus Ms. Natasa Economou Administrative Officer A' Tel.: + 357 22 867 733 Fax: e-mail: neconomou@moi.gov.cy Ms. Agni Papageorgiou Administrative Officer Tel: + 357 22 867 722 Fax: + 357 22 867 838 e-mail> apapageorgiou@moi.gov.cy Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Moldova: Migration Policy Directorate: Mrs. Carolina Miscoi, Head of Analysis and Prognosis Division, tel: (373 22)277 488; e-mail: (moldovacarolina@gmail.com) Mrs. Olesea Cotoman, consultant tel/fax+ 373 22 277 251, email: migrare@migrare.gov.md Ministry of Labour of Social Protection and Family: Mrs. Laura Grecu, Director of the Social Insurance Policies Division; Tel.+373 22 731506 Email: laura.grecu@mpsfc.gov.md Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration: Mr. Oleg Nica - Head of the division, Juridical and consular relations directorate. Tel. (373 22) 201 046; e-mail oleg.nica@mfa.mdBorder Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md Mr Averian Borga, Head of section within the Division for		2009-10 (this activity is not any more within the plan, it should be removed)	National Funds
					International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax.+373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md			
X. Cooperation in border management, identity and travel documents, fight against illegal/irregular migration and trafficking in human beings	1. Fighting irregular migration and the trafficking in human beings	D. Document security	a. Setting up and keeping up to date an action plan for the steady improvement of travel and identity document security, including through the use of biometric data	EC,MD	Ministry of Informational Development Mr. Pavel SINCARIUC - Head of the general directorate for informational development of society, Tel: (373 22) 504-504, fax 504-979, e-mail pavel.sincariuc@mdi.gov.md Border Guard Service of the Republic of Moldova Mr Rosian Vasiloi, Head of General Director's Office, Tel + 373 22 259603, rosian.vasiloi@border.gov .md Mr Averian Borga, Head of section within the Division for International Relations and European Integration, HQ Tel. +373 22 259642 Fax.+373 22 259651 rel.int@border.gov.md			EC ENPI 2008
X. Cooperation in border management, identity and travel documents, fight against illegal/irregular migration and trafficking in human beings	2. Facilitation of mobility	A. Local mobility	a. convention on local border traffic	RO, MD	Ministry of Foreign Affairs General Department for Consular Affairs Contact person: Mr.Cornel Vi$oiu, Director drco@mae.ro New contact: 0040213196879 Mihai Delcea [Mihai.Delcea@mae.ro] is now in charge of this project Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration: Mr. Oleg Nica - Head ofthe division, Juridical and consular relations directorate. Tel. (373 22) 201 046; e-mail oleg.nica@mfa.md		answer pending	State budget
Jasmina Klojčnik, univ.dipl.oec
ECERS- European Centre for Ethnic, Regional and Sociological Studies
University of Maribor jasmina.kloj cnik@uni-mb.si
CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION AS A TOOL OF DEVELOPMENT AND COHESION - EXPERIENCES IN THE EU
Introduction: the context of cross-border cooperation in Europe
Cross-border co-operation was present in Europe already before the Second World War, however became an intensive process particularly after it. It is interesting that Germany was the most active initiator of developing first initiatives for cross-border cooperation with its adjacent countries in the period after the WWII. Cross-border cooperation was thus an important process of promoting of good neighbourly relations in Europe.
Cross-border cooperation is not a process, which is exclusive solely for Europe; forms of cross-border and territorial co-operation are common also for other parts of the world. However, in no other part of the world has cross-border co-operation become such an important and integrated element of the spatial planning and development as in Europe.
Cross-border cooperation has throughout the years grown to become today an irreversible element in the European territorial construction process, which has been recognised as such in public international law, embodied in principles, strategies and policies of all levels of administration (local, regional, national and international). The EU has through this process not turned into the "Europe of Regions", however the spatial restructuring continues with a rapid pace and cross-border cooperation, as a part of territorial cooperation in Europe, will certainly continue to be an integral element of the European politics also in the future.1
PART 1: HISTORICAL STAGES IN DEVELOPMENT OF CROSS-BORDER COOPERA TION IN EUROPE
The evolution of the forms of the territorial co-operation at the sub-state level in Western Europe can be divided into four historical periods:2
1st Period: 1958 - 1980
This period was marked by spring of spontaneous forms of cross-border cooperation. The first attempts to solve common problems at local and regional level were present in the then emerging Be-Ne-Lux and then soon also on other borders; almost exclusively between Germany, Netherlands Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Switzerland and Scandinavia. Those initiatives were based on more or less formal agreements, and often they were the result of the goodwill expressed by the actors. In 1970ies states began to establish intergovernmental committees on issues related to borderland; regional and local authorities were never invited to participate. Therefore, there was a rejection and lack of financial and technical support to cross-border cooperation as it was still perceived as a threat to dissolution
1	Keating (2008)
2	Guimera, Gonzales (2010)
of the state territory and any attempt to formalise this kind of cooperation was understood by central governments as infringement of state sovereignty.
In this period the first cross-border region appeared; this was the Euro-region "EUREGIO" on the Dutch-German border in 1958. The idea started in a cross-border conference which was organised by municipal associations from both sides. For the start of the cooperation each side established its own association of municipalities on the basis of private law. The two associations organised regular meetings in order to discuss common problems and solutions; mainly in the field of creating efficient and complementary regional and local infrastructure. In 1966 the first joint operational body for the cross-border region was founded, called the "EUREGIO working group". Looking from the today's position has EUREGIO spent more than 45 years building and reinforcing cross-border structures. Today they have structures which are assigned the task to create and develop better relations at all levels and in all spheres of life between citizens and authorities. Still today EUREGIO is one of the most
9
successful Euro-regions. It spans over approximately 13.000 km and includes 3,3 million
inhabitants.
www.euregio.de/
2nd Period: 1980 - 1990
The period was characterised by development of the first instruments for legal support
In 1980 the 1st international legal document was prepared by the Council of Europe: European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, the so called "Madrid Convention "
http://conventions.coe.int/
Madrid convention depicts the beginning of the new era for cross-border cooperation, which is characterised by intense development of the international legal provisions, mainly in the frame of the Council of Europe.
Madrid Convention was prepared as a set of framework legal solutions, which can help local and regional authorities to establish a legal framework for cross-border cooperation. It is divided into two parts; the first part of the convention contains legally binding regulations for the signatory states, while the second part lists a series of 'model agreements', both for the inter-state and the local levels, as options for possible CBC arrangements. This latter part of the convention is intended for guidance only and has no treaty value.
Madrid Convention has been up today ratified by 36 member states of the Council of Europe, while 11 did not ratify it yet. Among countries which didn't ratify the Convention are UK, Iceland, Cyprus, Greece, some other small European states like Andorra, San Marino and some Balkans states (Serbia, Montenegro, FYR Macedonia). The Convention is ratified by Moldova (1999), Russia (2002) and Ukraine (1993) without any reservations.
1981 - "European Charter for Border and Cross-Border Regions" was worked out by the
Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) as an informal document, presenting a set of recommendations for developing cross-border cooperation. AEBR today has more than 180 members, which are regions or cross-border regions or large scale territorial cooperation forms.
This document does not have a legal validity, but is clearly aimed at influencing and
supporting the establishment of cross-border structures.
www.AEBR.eu
The Council of Europe prepared in 1985 a new convention, which should assist the creation of cross-border cooperation; i.e. the European Charter of Local Self-Government. http://conventions.coe.int/
Today it is ratified by almost all CoE members, except of micro-states Andorra, Monaco and San Marino. Moldova ratified the Charter in 1997, Russia in 1998 and Ukraine in 1997; all three countries posed no reservations.
The Charter commits the ratifying member states to guaranteeing the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities. It provides that the principle of local self-government shall be recognised in domestic legislation and, where practicable, in the constitution. It is the earliest legal instrument to set out the principle of subsidiarity (matters should be handled by least centralised competent authority). This implies that local authorities, acting within the limits of the law, are to be able to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility in the interests of the local population.
In 1997 the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe with the backing of the Committee of Regions of the EU prepared a draft "European Charter of Regional Self-Government". The CLRAE is still making efforts to get this charter the Status of European Treaty, which however because of discordances between the member states still did not succeed until today.
3rd Period: 1990 - 2006
In 1990 began in the EU the time of setting in place of strong instruments for financial support and strong expansion of cross-border initiatives.
The Single European Act, which was adopted in 1986, laid the basis for comprehensive regional policy of the EU, which main objective was to assist the less-favoured regions in their development initiatives. The EU regional policy is carried out through the Structural funds, which provide financial support to different programmes. INTERREG programme was initiated in 1990 and its objective was to support the cross-border cooperation between the EU regions. It evolved in three periods: 1990-93, 1994-99 and 2000-2006), each one with grater funding, eligible areas and territorial scope. Soon after setting Interreg programme in place, the EU opened also programmes for border regions of non-EU states (Phare, Tacis, Cards and Meda, today IPA and ENPI).
4th Period: 2006 onwards
A new step marked with strong institutional support to promotion of cross-border cooperation.
It can be stated that in 2006 a new period started with the turning point in the evolution of cross-border cooperation in Europe, which is reflected in the field of institutional support (legal and financial) to more resolute initiatives of cross-border co-operation.
With the regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 EU created a new legal instrument EGTC - European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation, which was designed to facilitate and promote cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. Unlike the structures which governed this kind of cooperation before 2007, the EGTC is a legal entity. http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/funds/gect/index en.htm
rd
Also the Council of Europe developed a very similar instrument, as the 3 Protocol to the Madrid Convention. It was open for signatures in 2009 and offers provisions for establishment of European Cooperation Groupings (ECGs), which is a complementary instrument to the EGTCs of the EU. This instrument until now was not yet ratified by any member state.
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/treaties/html/206.htm
These new instruments were designed in order to facilitate the work of the many Euro-regions that exist in Europe, but which predominantly show a very low performance and the results are weak. The new instruments seek to deliver to Euro-regions a legal entity, which should increase theirfunctional potential.
PART 2: FRAMING CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
1.	What is cross-border cooperation?
Due to great variety of different forms, solutions and the size of area in which the cross-border cooperation develops, it is basically impossible to determine a universal definition of this phenomenon.
The European Commission in its programme outline simply states that: .. "... Cross-border cooperation is essentially about "filling the gaps..."
It is not difficult to agree that cross-border cooperation is a more or less institutionalised collaboration between actors from both (or more) sides of the border and it is aimed to coordinate and elaborate common policies and actions and to achieve synergy in development efforts of each area separated by a border.
•	3
Main elements of cross-border cooperation can be defined as3:
-	collaboration of sub-state authorities (from regions to local councils);
-	collaboration of other territorial actors (enterprises, chambers of commerce, schools, universities, NGOs etc.);
-	it is aimed at solving the dysfunctions caused by the border (political and administrative, economic, cultural etc);
2.	The changed context of borders in Europe today
3 Guimera, Gonzales (2010)
It is to be stressed that as contradictory as it might seem, the integration and functional unification of the EU space and the vivid and plentiful forms of cross-border cooperation did not eliminate the notion of borders in Europe4; they are still present between the members of the EU, everybody knows exactly where the borders lie; however what has changed is the character of the borders, the way in which people perceive the borders in Europe today. The borders are today clearly demarcation lines, which delimit spaces of national and cultural identities and as such have grown in importance in the mental picture of the people belonging to such specific spaces. In functional sense the borders have assumed the role of areas of contact and open inter-action of various factors from boths sides of the border. More specifically, we can clearly claim that borders in Europe today perform the following main functions: 5
-	a point of junction
-	a link for separated spaces
-	an area of developing synergy
-	an area of open social, economic and political inter-action
3.	Reflection on the border regions and the change in the centre-periphery relations
What territory are we talking about when we say border region? Territories concerned by cross-border cooperation usually form spontaneously as a result of the benefits of economic development that such cooperation brings. The border regions can thus range from relatively small areas in sparsely-populated or relatively inaccessible spaces (rural areas, mountain ranges) to larger spaces (urban areas); when they enter into cross-border cooperation from one country one local community or one region or many local / regional communities can join this initative.
Today nearly all European local or regional authorities lying along borders are party to some form of cross-border co-operation. In such circumstances of increasingly integrated Europe, defining of border regions and nature of borders is becoming en ever more complex task. The borders have lost their role as the "gatekeepers of the state sovereignty" 6 and border regions have moved away from their historical position as the under-developed space in certain country, which encountered many problems due to its periphery position; while the poles of growth were concentrated in the central areas of the country. The border regions have assumed the central position in a different context: the motivation for searching for synergies across the borders, in a larger area, is stronger as in the "traditional" development areas and thus the incentives for new project and cooperation ideas carry greater energetic potential. All this is sufficiently backed also with the instruments (legal and financial) in an international context, which all results in a growing development potential and indicators in the border regions.
4.	Main motives for Cross-border cooperation
Motives for starting cross-border cooperation can be many and various, from improving the neighbourhood relations or protecting the rights of minorities, however it can be stated that the strongest motives which give incentive for a lasting and successful cooperation are:
4	See Keating, M (2008), Gualini, E (2003)
5	Resumed after Ricq, C (2000)
6	Gualini (2003)
•	Increase in the economic capacity for development of border areas and
•	Increase in the standard of living of the population on both sides of the border.
Further it is to be stressed that experiences show that cross-border cooperation brings opportunities and development advantages to areas from both side of the border also in case; case if the levels of development are different; cross-border cooperation brings benefits to the lesser and to the stronger developed area.
5.	Fundamental principles of cross-border cooperation
The philosophy behind cross-border cooperation is that border should not be a line of division, but a line of cooperation and common development. This can be embraced by the following principles:
-	partners instead of competitors
-	dysfunctions caused by border can be eliminated
-	building synergies across border
-	think global, act local (common endeavours to find local solutions for global challenges)
-	diversity is an asset, not a barrier
-	win-win situation
These basic principles reflect the main corner stones for any cross-border incentive and describe the potential that such kind of cooperation carries within.
6.	Main hindrances to successful cross-border cooperation
The situations regarding cross-border cooperation are very various across Europe. It is impossible to define all obstacles for all situations that can emerge and they may have very different sources, however it is important that partner in such programmes make a thorough analysis of potential weaknesses and threats so that they can be addressed in time and with efficiency. Nevertheless, experiences show that there are some common challenges that have to be addressed by the partners in cross-border cooperation. They can be divided into internal and external factors
Internal (national) factors:
•	National administrative decentralisation of the territory; some local and regional authorities may have very little competencies transferred from the central state level for engaging in such forms of cooperation;
•	National prevailing atmosphere towards this kind of cooperation; which might be unfavourable towards the initiatives of border regions to establish cooperation with adjoining areas;
•	Insufficiency in "development potential" of the regional / local border communities; among other factors especially:
- Lack of motivated and trained staff;
-	Lack of awareness and knowledge on the existing concepts, programmes and instruments for stimulating of regional / local development and cross-border cooperation;
-	Lack of skills for successful project management;
-	Lack of financial sources.
External (international) factors:
•	Economic imbalances (difference in costs of work and services, differences in entrepreneurial structure, in infrastructure, tax differences etc.);
•	Administrative incompatibilities: different administrative procedures; different administrative structures, different level of institutional competencies, differences in financing procedures and in sources and allocation of public and/or private funds;
•	Cultural and linguistic distances.
7.	Fields of Cooperation
The EU stipulates that cross-border co-operation deals with a wide range of issues, which include:
-	Encouraging entrepreneurship, especially the development of SMEs, tourism, culture and cross-border trade;
-	Improving joint management of natural resources;
-	Supporting links between urban and rural areas;
-	Improving access to transport and communication networks;
-	Developing joint use of infrastructure;
-	Administrative, employment and equal opportunities work.
Whether the challenge relates to infrastructure (building bridges), to markets and services (linking universities to business to clients) or to cultural or linguistic barriers, cross-border cooperation is intended to address them.
8.	Process of building of cross-border cooperation
Cross-border cooperation is a process, it is like building a house; it takes somebody to instigate the idea, fundaments have to be built, a lot of effort and personal motivation is necessary and it is a time-consuming process.
The principal issue in promoting of cross-border cooperation is the need that two areas separated by a border move from logic of pure competition to logic of "coopetition" combining cooperation and competition. Essential is the recognition of both sides that coming closer to a neighbour can provide what is lacking for your own development. This is true both for public-sector actors and for the economic actors themselves.
The main focus of the public authorities in their economic development programmes is still often the nation-State framework. Competition between territories is still the rule in many cross-border regions. There is a lack of awareness of the fact that cross-border economic development can generate added value for the whole territory. The provision of suitable instruments for the economic actors is dependent on raising this awareness. The mutual mistrust of economic actors at local level is one of the major obstacles to cooperation in a predominantly competitive context. It is necessary to demonstrate the added value of cooperation across borders in order to increase the potential of cross-border
territories. The border can be used in a way that optimises collective advantages. Neither public- nor private-sector actors maximise their potential by each developing their own strategy.
Diminishing dysfunctions of borders: It is time to make optimum use of the common territorial capital of the cross-border territories. For example, mastery by the labour force and businesses of two languages, cultures, administrative environments, etc., is an advantage, opening up their economic horizon not only to the cross-border territory itself, but also more broadly to the whole of the two or three countries concerned, and even beyond to European or global level.
Building synergies and complementarity: It is important not to have too naive an approach: businesses, like territories, are in competition within national spaces and all the more so in a cross-border context. By participating in the European Union, the States have chosen to cooperate; the construction of Europe is undisputedly a "win-win" game, but one in which some territories may suffer in the short term.
Disparity of economic forces on either side of a border is a crucial contextual factor for cooperation. The economic or industrial fabric often differs significantly between the two sides of the border. This is closely linked with differences in salaries, unemployment rates, prices, etc. The paradox is that such a context can be both an advantage for private actors (households and businesses), which profit from these differences in their choice of location and use of the labour market, and for certain public-sector actors (fewer unemployed and lower burdens on social protection systems), and a handicap for other public-sector actors.
Think global, act local: In an approach based on economy of scale, "the bigger, the greater the impact", cross-border cooperation "enlarges" the territory, perhaps enabling it to reach critical mass in terms of facilities and public services. The same applies to SMEs, which have a higher international profile, etc.
One of the most important consequences is the splitting of the costs of investment in innovative sectors for facilities, laboratories, etc., often very expensive in such fields, between the partners. In many cases this investment would not have been considered by each partner on its own. This can generate joint capability-building for winning local, European and global markets.
By looking beyond the local context it is possible to reach a win-win situation at the international level. To achieve this it is necessary to think "European", even "global".
PART 3: EU SUPPORT TO EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL COOPERA TION
http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/index en.htm
1. Policy for European Regions
The aim is to reduce disparities in growth between the regions in the EU, which have significantly grown with the EU enlargements in 2004 and 2007.
• average GDP per capita in EU-27 reduced by almost 12 % compared to EU-15
•	EU realises 43% of its economic income in only 14 % of its territory
•	Luxembourg is the richest EU state and has a GDP 7 times higher than Romania, the poorest EU state
•	lowest GDP per capita: region of Nord-East Romania - 25% of EU average
•	highest GDP per capita: Inner London region - 336% of EU average
(Eurostat data)
Regional policy is within the EU the second most important policy regarding the financial support; 1/3 of all EU budgetary finances are intended to support regional development: in 2007 - 2013this support amounts to 345,5 billion €
Regional policy is pursuing 3 objectives:
•	convergence	282,8 billion € (81,5%)
•	regional competitiveness and employment	55 billion € (16 %)
•	European territorial cooperation	7.75 billion € (2.5 %)
2. European Territorial Cooperation
http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/cooperation/index en.htm
The European Territorial Co-operation objective is financed through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (other two fund for regional development are European Social Fund (ESF) and Cohesion Fund).
Cross border co-operation is a part of the set of the EU regional policy, which is called "European Territorial Cooperation". This objective is financed through the ERDF - European Regional Development fund. There is also a new legal instrument to strengthen co-operation across borders (EGCT) and a number of new instruments to support regional development along the EU's external borders and with both candidate and potential candidate countries, and third countries (IPA, ENPI).
Territorial policy of the EU encourages regions and cities from different EU Member States to work together and learn from each other through joint programmes, projects and networks. In the period 2007-13 the European Territorial Co-operation objective (formerly the INTERREG Community Initiative) covers three types of programmes:
•	STRAND A: Cross-border cooperation
o Border regions of the EU o 52 programmes
o Cca. 70 % of budget; i.e. 5,4 billion €
•	STRAND B: Transnational cooperation
o Large international regions (North Sea, Baltic Sea, Alpine space, South-East
Europe etc.) o 13 programmes
o Cca.: 25% of budget; i.e. 1,8 billion €
Budget 2007-2013
8.7 billion € (together for ENPI and IPA) (2,5%)
STRAND C: Interregional cooperation
o Known as Interreg C, Interact, Urban, ESPON o Covers all EU, Norway and Switzerland o Cca.: 5% of budget; i.e. 445 million €
3. Programmes for cross-border cooperation with regions on the external EU border
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-cross-border/index_en.htm
The instrument, which offers support to cross-border cooperation between member states and partner countries along the external border of the European Union in the financial period 2007-2013 is ENPI Cross Border Cooperation (TACIS before)
The ENPI CBC strategy has four key objectives:
•	Promote economic and social development in border areas
•	Address common challenges
•	Ensure efficient and secure borders
•	Promote people-to-people cooperation
Funding: altogether in 2007-2013: 1.18 billion €, which is divided into:
•	2007-2010 amounts to € 583.28 M (€ 274.92 M ENPI, and € 308.36 M ERDF)
•	2011-13 foreseen further € 535.15 M (€ 252.23 M ENPI and € 282.93 M ERDF -subject to mid-term review of this strategy and the adoption of the Indicative Programme for the period 2011-13
15 Programmes were established under the ENPI Cross-border cooperation programme for the period 2007-2013:
Land-Border Programmes
•	The Kolarctic-Russia Programme
•	The Karelia-Russia Programme
•	The South-East Finland-Russia Programme
•	The Estonia-Latvia-Russia Programme
•	The Latvia-Lithuania-Belarus Programme
•	The Lithuania-Poland-Russia Programme
•	The Poland-Belarus-Ukraine Programme
•	The Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine Programme
•	The Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova Programme Sea-Crossing Programmes
•	The Spain-Morocco Programme
•	The CBC Atlantic Programme
•	The Italy-Tunisia Programme Sea-Basin Programmes
•	The Black Sea Programme
•	The Mediterranean Sea Programme
•	The Baltic Sea Region Programme
Each programme has a Joint Managing Authority and the Technical Secretariat, which are responsible for managing and coordinating the particular ENPI CBC programme. All the necessary information about open calls management and other can be obtained on the internet pages of the particular programme.
ENPI CBC Technical Assistance
The European Commission is providing also technical support to the programmes, mainly by financing two special projects: RCBI and INTERACT. They provide valuable information and support to everybody who wants to engage in the projects of ENPI CBC: RCBI focuses on assistance mainly at project level (helps to develop project proposals); INTERACT ENPI is set up to improve the management and the implementation of the ENPI CBC programmes
More info:
http://www.rcbi.info/
http://www.interact-eu.net/interact enpi/interact enpi/122/562
4. EU Cross-border cooperation — Success Story "Euregio Maas-Rhein"
In continuation we are presenting a typical story on cross-border cooperation, which is being funded by the EU cross-border cooperation programme. As mentioned above, in the period 2007-2013 there are 52 cross-border cooperation programmes between EU regions approved into financing.
More about the approved operational programmes can be obtained at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/atlas2007/eu/crossborder/index en.htm (programme summaries)
Operational Programme 'Euregio Maas-Rhein' (Belgium, Germany, Netherlands)
The total allocation for the programme amounts to 144.8 million euros.
The Euroregion Maas Rhein is among the oldest in Europe, it was established in 1976.
Strategic objectives of the Operational Programme
The cross-border co-operation strategy for Euregio Maas-Rhein for 2007-2013 aims to promote sustainable regional development in economic, spatial and social terms where borders are no longer an obstacle. This involves strengthening its image as an innovative region in which social cohesion and environmental protection are incorporated into the development and job-creation process.
Estimated impact of the Operational Programme
The implementation of this cross-border co-operation programme should lead to the creation of several business clusters, the establishment of a number of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in high-technology sectors, the development of public/private research, the protection of some 30 hectares of cross-border natural areas, the creation of new and sustainable transport routes and services, the development of the use of renewable energies,
the creation of up to a dozen new cross-border health care services and the development of several new tourism products and cultural events.
Priorities
There are four strands to the Operational Programme:
*	Strengthening the economic structure, the promotion of knowledge, innovation, and the creation of more and better quality jobs
This priority seeks to improve the economic competitiveness of the Euregio Maas-Rhein by developing business competitiveness, promoting technology and innovation, promoting cooperation between academic establishments and businesses, strengthening the tourism sector and supporting the development of the labour market.
*	Nature and the environment, energy, natural resources and mobility
There are three main objectives in this priority area: nature and landscape conservation, the promotion of sustainable forms of mobility and the production and promotion of renewable energy.
*	Quality of life
The aims here are to improve health care services by developing cross-border services, to promote cultural diversity, to improve the quality of life and to strengthen cooperation in the field of public security.
*	Technical assistance
This strand will provide support for the introduction of an effective management, monitoring and control system, for the evaluation of the programme and its projects and for communication and publicity actions relating to the programme.
Managing Authority
Stichting Euregio Maas-Rhein Postbus 5700 NL-6202 Maastricht Web: www.euregio-mr.org Joint Technical Secretariat Gospertstraße 42 B-4700 Eupen
5. Regional Policy for Macro Regions
A relatively new approach has emerged in the EU policy for territorial cooperation, which expands cross-border cooperation to a greater level; namely the scope of cooperation is targeted on the "macro-region". In June 2009 the European Commission approved the EU "Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region", which is the first comprehensive strategy and integrated set of instruments for one macro-region.
When explaining why this strategy is need, the European Commission writes: since the EU enlargement of 2004, challenges facing the Region have increased. Escalating environmental threats, gaps in economic development and poor transport accessibility are issues which need to be tackled urgently. Many of these problems can only be addressed through better coordination and joint action. The EU is well-placed to facilitate comprehensive and integrated approach to solving of problems in a macro-region.
Exactly in this time the last preparations for the adoption of the second Strategy for the macro-region are being carried out; namely in December 2010 the European Commission should issue the communication and adopt the Action plan of the "Strategy for the Danube Region".
This strategy builds on experiences of the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region; however it is taking into account its own particularities. In difference to the Baltic Region, includes the Danube region also non-EU countries. The area of cooperation is determined as a functional area defined by its river basin. Geographically it concerns primarily but not exclusively: Germany (Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria), Austria, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria within the EU, and Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine (the regions along the Danube) outside. The Strategy remains open to other partners in the Region. Since the Danube flows into the Black Sea, it should be coherent with Black Sea perspectives. With over 100 million people, and a fifth of EU surface, the area is vital for Europe.
On 8 November 2010 a Danube summit was held in Bucharest, present was also the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jose Manuel Barosso. In the Declaration from this Summit the Heads of State and Governments of the Danube Region highlighted that:
•	They were strongly committed to implement the Strategy (and hence their administration should also assist);
•	The Strategy aimed at a more efficient use of existing EU instruments and funds (which should be aligned);
•	The Commission should play an important role in the implementation of the actions;
•	Realistic and visible actions were needed to have concrete improvements on the ground.
More about both macro-region strategies:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional policy/cooperation/baltic/index en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/danube/index_en.htm
References:
European Commission: Europe 2020, a Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, March 2010
Gualini, Enrico (2003): Cross-border Governance: Inventing Regions in a Trans-nation Multi-level Polity. In: DISP, Vol 39, pp 43-52
Guimera, Antoni-Dura; Gonzales, Xavier Oliveras (2010): Recent dynamics in European Cross-border Cooperation: towards a new period? Presented at the Regional Studies Association Annual International Conference 2010.
INTERACT Handbook: The European Grouping of territorial Cooperation, November 2008. http://www.interact-eu.net/interact_publications/interact_egtc_publications/255/3n9 Keating, Michael (2008): A Quarter Century of the Europe of the Regions. In: Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 18, No. 5, 629-636, October 2008.
Ricq, Charles (2000): Handbook on Transfrontier Co-operation for Local and Regional Authorities in Europe, 3rd edition. Council of Europe: Transfrontier co-operation in Europe, No.4
Ricq, Charles (2006): Handbook of Trasnfrontier Co-operation, 2006 edition. Council of Europe, 2006.
Internet sources:
Policy for cross-border cooperation
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/neighbourhood/regional-cooperation/enpi-cross-
border/index_en.htm
Technical support to cross-border cooperation: RCBI - technical support to ENPI CBC http://www.rcbi.info/pages/27 1.html InterAct ENPI
http://www.interact-eu.net/interact enpi/interact enpi/122/562 InterAct EU
http://www.interact-eu.net/ EU institutions
•	European Parliament/Committee on Regional Development (REGI) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/organes/regi/regi_7leg_meetingli
st.htm
•	Committee of the Regions http://www.cor.europa. eu
•	European Economic and Social Committee (ECO Section) http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.fr.eco-section
•	European Investment Bank http://www.eib.org
•	Eurostat (Regional statistics) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region cities/introduction
•	Eurostat (NUTS-Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts nomenclature/introduction
European regions' and cities' organisations
•	Council of Europe (Congress of local and regional authorities) http://www.coe.int/t/congress/default_en.asp
•	Assembly of European Regions (AER) http://www.a-e-r.org
•	Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) http://www.aebr.net
•	Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions (CPMR) http://www.crpm.org
•	Council of European Municipalities and Regions http://www.ccre.org/
•	Eurocities http://www.eurocities.org
•	European Metropolitan Regions and Areas (METREX)
http://www.eurometrex.org
•	Association of Regional Development Agencies (EURADA) http://www.eurada.org
•	Euromontana http://www.euromontana.org
Regional policy research:
•	European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) http://www.espon.eu
•	Regional Studies Association http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/
•	European Policy Research Centre, Glasgow http://www.eprc .strath.ac.uk/eprc/
•	European Institute of Public Administration http://www.eipa.nl/
International organisations:
•	OECD (Regional, rural and urban development) http://www.oecd.org/about/0,2337,en 2649 37429 1 1 1 1 37429,00.html
•	World Bank http://www.worldbank.org/
•	Commission on Growth and Development http://www.growthcommission.org/
Maps
•	Eurostat (Statistical maps) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gisco/maps posters/maps
•	European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON), Publications http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu Publications/
•	European Environment Agency (Graphs and maps) http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/default.asp?refid=2D511360-4CD0-4F20-A817-
B3A882ACE323
•	International Monetary Fund (World GDP) http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php
•	Worldmapper http://www.worldmapper.org/index.html
TaBpHKOB A.B.
Be^OpyCCKHH TOprOBO-3KOHOMUHecKUH yHUBepcuTeT noTpe6uTenbcKoM K00^epa^uu
r. roMenb
COCTOflHHE, nPOB^EMW H nEPCTEKTHBBI nPHrPAHHHHOrO COTPy^HHHECTBA PECnyB^HKH
BE^APYCb C ^HTBOH H ^ATBHEH
SUMMARY
The relations between the Republic of Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania are based largely on foreign trade. However, the cross-border cooperation of these countries has recently acquired considerable development. The favorable location of Latvia and Lithuania, their accession to the European Union enable the Republic of Belarus to promote trade not only with these countries, but also with other countries in Western Europe.
The major commodity groups exported to Latvia are oil products, semi-finished unalloyed steel products, rapeseed, and others. Oil products, mineral fertilizers, rapeseed oil and other products are exported to Lithuania. Currently, the cooperation between the Republic of Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania is not limited to trade only. Besides there functions the Bug Euroregion, joint venturing is being developed, and the programs of cross-border development are being elaborated.
Pecny6nuKa Eenapycb, KaK u gpyrue rocygapcTBa 6biBmero CCCP nocne o6peTeHUA cyBepeHUTeTa cTana aKTUBHbiM ynacrauKOM Me:gyHapogHbix OTHomeHUH. TeHgeH^uu pa3BUTUA BHemHeü ToproBnu go 2008 r. 6binu omuMucTunecKUMu, ^KC^opT BO3pacTan BbicOKUMU TeMnaMU. OgHaKO, ^HHaHCOBHH KpH3HC, npOU3OmegmUH B KOH^ 2008 r. OTpa3unca u Ha ^K0H0MUKe Eenapycu, hto Bbipa3unocb b coKpa^eHuu ^Kc^opTa.
OTpu^TenbHoe BHemHeToproBoe canbgo u 3aBucuMocTb ot uMnopTupyeMbix ^Hep^opecypcoB Tpe6yeT nocTOAHHoro noucKa BO3Mo:HocTeM yBenuneHua ^KC^0pTH0^0 ^OTeH^Hana pecny6nuKu.
^eflTenbHocTb Eenapycu He orpaHunuBaeTca TonbKo ToproBneü, pa6oTa BegeTca no MHoruM HanpaBneHHAM, TaKux, KaK:
-	yHu^uKa^ua HopMaTUBHO-npaBOBOH 6a3bi b cooTBeTCTBuu c Me:gyHapogHbiMu cTaHgapTaMu,
-	B3auMogeücTBue c Me:gyHapogHbiMu ^uHaHcoBO-KpeguTHbiMu u gpyruMu op^aHU3a^uaMu,
-	npuBneneHue uHocTpaHHbix uHBecTu^uH,
-	op^aHU3a^ua coBMecTHbix npou3BogcTB,
-	co3gaHue u ^yH^uoHupoBaHue cBo6ogHbix ^K0H0MUHecKux 3oh,
-	ynacTue b pa3nuHHbix ^K0H0MUHecKux o6pa3OBaHuax (TaMo:eHHbiH coro3, EBpa3^C
u gp.),
-	pa3BHTue c^epbi ycnyr;
-	Me:gyHapogHoe HaynHO-TexHunecKoe coTpygHunecTBO u gp.
KpoMe ^T0^0, Pecny6nuKa Eenapycb ocy^ecTBnaeT coTpygHunecTBO b ^nax pa3BUTUA npurpaHHHHHx peruoHOB, oco6oe BHUMaHue npu ^T0M cnegyeT ygenuTb
B3auMooTHomeHuaM c HaTBueM u Hutbom.
B3auMooTHomeHua PecnyGnuKu Benapycb c HaTBueM u Hutbom crpoaTca b GonbmeM CTeneHu b c^epe BHemHeM ToproBnu. B ToproBbix oTHomeHuax Benapycu c HaTBueM u Hutbom HaGnrogaeTca aHanoruHHaa guHaMuKa, KaK u b ^.om no BHemHeM ToproBne Benapycu. AaHHbie oG ^KC^opTe u uMnopTa npegcraBneHbi b TaGn. 1.
TaGnu^ 1 - AuHaMuKa BHemHeToproBoro oGopoTa Benapycu c HaTBueM u Hutbom 3a 2006-2009 rr.
noKa3aTenu	Togbi				TeMnbi u3MeHeHua, b % k npegbigy^eMy rogy		
	2006	2007	2008	2009	2007	2008	2009
^KC^opT, Bcero B T.H. -	b HaTBuro -	B HuTBy	19734	24275	32571	21282	123,0	134,2	65,3
	462 432,7	990,2 564,5	2141 619,2	1658,5 370,8	214,3 130,5	216,2 109,7	77,5 59,9
HMnopT, Bcero B T.H. -	b HaTBuro -	B HuTBy	22351	28693	39381	28564	128,4	137,2	72,5
	111,9 170,3	127,5 180,1	138 233,6	116,6 194,8	113,9 105,8	108,2 129,7	84,5 83,4
Ao 2008 r. b ^KC^opTe c HaTBueM u Hutbom Gbinu nono^uTenbHbie TeHgeH^uu, ho b 2009 r. npu chu^huu oG^ero oGbeMa ^KC^opTa Ha 34,7%, ^KC^opT b HaTBuro coKpaTunca Ha 23,5%, B HuTBy - Ha 40,1%.
Hcxoga u3 gaHHbix TaGnu^i 1 BugHo, hto go 2008 r. ^KC^opT u uMnopT c HaTBueM u Hutbom Bo3pacranu. BMecTe c TeM, b 2009 r. no cpaBHeHuro c 2008 r. npu oG^eM chu^huu ^KC^opTa Ha 34,7%, ^KC^opT b HaTBuro coKpaTunca Ha 23,5%, b HuTBy - Ha 40,1%. CoKpaTunca u uMnopT, to MeHbmuMu TeMnaMu.
AuHaMuKa yge.bHoro Beca ^KC^opTa b HaTBuro u HuTBy b oG^eM oGbeMe ^KC^opTa b Benapycb 3a 2006-2009 rr. npegcraB.eHa Ha pucyHKe 1.
9,00 i 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00
										
										
				4,08						
										
	2,34	12,19				,	3	3		
										
										
6,57
1,90 i
7,79
74!
2006
2007
2008
2009
□ flaTBHa
ED flHTBa
f
PucyHoK 1 - AuHaMuKa yge.bHoro Beca ^KC^opTa b HaTBuro u HuTBy b oG^eM oGbeMe
^KC^opTa b Benapycb 3a 2006-2009 rr., % HecMoTpa Ha coKpa^eHue ^KC^opTa b HaTBuro ero ygenbHbiM Bec b oG^eM ^KC^opTe PecnyGnuKu Benapycb Bo3pacTaeT, b 2009 r. cocTaBun 7,79%. YgenbHbiM Bec nocTaBoK b
HuTBy - 1,74%.
Pecny6nuKa Eenapycb ^KC^opTupyeT b HaTBuro TaKue rpynn T0Bap0B: ceMeHa panca, Mac.no pancoBoe, conb, npogyKTu neperoHKu, He^TenpogyKTM, kokc u 6uTyM He^TaHue, coeguHeHua, cogep:®a^ue ^yH^uoHanbHyro HuTpunbHyro rpynny, ygo6peHua KanuHHue, ygo6peHua MuHepanbHue OMemaHHue, necoMaTepuanu, necoMaTepuanu npogonbHo-pacnuneHHue, u3genua cronapHue cTpouTenbHue, mnaKoBaTa, nony^aöpuKaTM u3 HenerupoBaHHoü cranu u gp.
CTpyKTypa ^KC^opTa 6enopyccKux ToBapoB b HaTBuro npegcraBneHa Ha pucyHKe 2. Hauöonbmuü ygenbHbrä Bec b ^KC^opTe no He^TenpogyKTaM - 56,61%, nony$a6puKaTM u3 HenerupoBaHHoü cranu - 4,02%, ceMeHa panca - 2,47%.
Mac.ro pancoBoe
CoegHHeHHa cogep^a^ne ^yH^noHantHyro HHTpH.bHyro rpynny 1,09%
Kokc h ÖHTyM He^TaHue 0,27%
PucyHoK 2 - CTpyKTypa ^KC^opTa 6enopyccKux ToBapoB b HaTBuro 3a 2009 r.
B HuTBy nocraBnaroTca cnegyro^ue ToBapHue rpynnu: ^pyKTM 3aMopo^eHHue Macno pancoBoe, ^MeHT, Top$, He^Tb cupaa, BKnronaa ra3oBMH KoHgeHcaT, He^TenpogyKTM, ygo6peHua MuHepanbHue cMemaHHue, «ryr cuHTeTunecKux HuTeü, Ka3euH, gpeBecuHa TonnuBHaa, necoMaTepuanu npogo.bHopacnuneHHue, npyTKu u3 HenerupoBaHHoü cranu, npoBonoKa u3 HenerupoBaHHoü cranu, MeTannoKoHcrpy^uu anroMuHueBue, TpaKTopu u cegenbHue Taranu, 6uhok.u, MoHoKynapu u gpyrue.
Hauöonbmuü ygenbHMH Bec b ^KC^opTe no He^TenpogyKTaM - 16,52%, MuHepanbHue ygo6peHua - 6,36%, Macno pancoBoe - 4,25%. CTpyKTypa ^KC^opTa 6enopyccKux ToBapoB b HuTBy npegcTaBneHa Ha pucyHKe 3.
B uMnopTe u3 HaTBuu npeo6nagaeT npogy^ua cenbcKoro xo3aücTBa u nu^eBoü npoMumneHHocTu, KpoMe Toro uMnopTupyeTca: pu6a Mopo^eHaa, KoHcepBupoBaHHaa pu6a, uKpa, npogyKTu gna KopMneHua «ubothmx, runc, aHrugpuT, runcoBue Ba^y^ue, ^neKTpo^Hep^ua, neKapcTBeHHue cpegcTBa, 3aMa3Ku, mnaTneBKu, Be^ecTBa cBa3yro^ue roToBue, y3Kue TKaHu, TpuKoTa^Hue nonoTHa MeTannoKoHcrpy^uu u3 nepHux MeTannoB, BaroHu MoTopHue «ene3Hogopo«Hue unu TpaMBaÜHMe u gp.
OpVKTLI
Ma eno pancoBoe,
TLI C I
Hecjxrt CLipaa,
BKTUOHaH ra30BLIII
npoMiie
62,28%
laraHii, iiitvk
3,60%
PucyHOK 3 - CTpyKTypa ^KC^opTa 6e.opyccKux T0Bap0B b HuTBy 3a 2009 r.
BasHoü cocraB^aro^eM uMnopTa u3 Hutbm b Be.apycb aB.aeTca ^.^eKTpo^Hep^ua, KpoMe Toro uMnopTupyeTca goMamHaa rcru^, nmeHu^, npogyKTbi g.a KopM.eHua subothmx, He^TenpogyKTbi, KpacKa Tunorpa^cKaa, HepHu.a u.u Tymb g.a nucbMa, n.uTbi, .uctm, n.eHKa u3 n.acTMacc, Tapa u3 6yMaru u KapTOHa, ap.biKu u ^TUKeTKu u3 6yMaru, KapTOHa, BaTa, creK.o 6e3onacHoe, MeTa..OKOHcrpy^uu u3 HepHbix MeTa..OB, Hacocw sugKocTHbie, aBTOMo6u.u .erKOBbie, apMaTypa g.a Tpy6onpoBogoB, ny.bTbi, naHe.u, cto.m g.a ^^eKTpoa^^apaTypH u gp.
KaK noKa3WBaroT pe3y.bTaTbi npegcraB.eHHoro Bwme aHa.u3a, Be.apycb aB.aeTca b 6o.bmeü CTeneHu ^KC^opTepoM, KaK yse OTMeHa.ocb Bwme gocraTOHHO 3HaHuTe.bHbi nocTaBKu b HaTBuro 1,66 M.pg go..apoB CfflA u.u noHTu 8% ot o6^eM cyMMbi ^KC^opTa. npu ^TOM 56% ^TO nocTaBKu He^TenpogyKTOB. HMnopT cocraBu. Bcero 166,6 m.h. go..apoB CfflA.
C Hutboh o6teMbi ToproB.u CKpoMHee, ^KC^opT 370,8, uMnopT 194,8 m.h. go..apoB CfflA. H3 o6eux CTpaH b Be.apycb nocraB.aeTca ^.^eKTpo^Hep^ua, a u3 Be.apycu ocy^ecTB^aroTca nocTaBKu He^TenpogyKTOB, He^Tu, ygo6peHuü.
PacnpocrpaHeHuro 6e.opyccKoü BbicoKOTexHo.oruHHoM npogy^uu Ha pbiHKax CTpaH Ba.Tuu cnoco6cTByeT to, hto ^hm Ha Hee HH«e, HeM Ha aHa.oruHHbie TOBapw u3 CTpaH EC.
B oTHomeHuax Be.apycu c HaTBueü u Hutboh npucyrcrayroT u pa3.uHHoro poga npo6.eMbi, na^e Bcero ohu o6yc.OB.eHbi oTcyTCTBueM ochobm g.a no.HO^HHoro no^uTunecKoro gua.ora, HegocraTOHHOH cK.OHHocTbro npaBu.bHO noHaTb ^O3u^uro gpyr gpyra. nepBOOHepegHOH 3agaHeü B3auMOOTHomeHuü gaHHbix cTpaH aB.aeTca co3gaHue «noaca go6pococegcTBa».
CBoeo6pa3HHM KOMneHcaTopoM npo6.eM, BO3HuKmux b ^KOHOMUHecKux oTHomeHuax Be.apycu c npurpaHuHHbiMu cTpaHaMu Ha ypoBHe rocygapcTBeHHbix cTpyKTyp, cra.o Ha^a^uBaHue ge.OBbix cBa3eü Ha hu3Obom ypoBHe b $opMe «He.HOHHoro» 6u3Heca.
TaKse mosho OTMeTuTb npo6.eMbi, cBa3aHHbie c:
-	coBepmeHcTBOBaHueM u ynpo^eHueM npo^gypw nponycKa MecTHoro Hace.eHua Ha TeppuTopuro cocegHero rocygapcTBa,
-	co3gaHueM o6^umu ycu.uaMu 6.aronpuaTHbix yc.OBuü g.a $.opbi u ^ayHbi 6e.opyccKO-.uTOBcKux norpaHuHHbix 3anoBegHbix npupogHbix 3OH,
-	cy^ecTByroT npo6.eMbi b oTHomeHuax c ochobhmmu eBponeücKuMu op^aHU3a^uaMu, b KOTopwe Bcrynu.u HuTBa u HaTBua;
-	pacxo:®geHua b geMcrayro^ux Ha^uoHa.^bHbIx TaMo:®eHHbix 3aKOHogaTe.bcTBax, KOTOpbie CHH3H^H ^$$eKTUBH0CTb B3auMOgeMcTBua TaMO^eHHblX c.y:®6 Be^apyCH C cocegHuMu rocygapcraaMu;
-	pa3BHTHeM coTpygHunecraa b oö.acru oö^ecraeHHoro ynpaB.eHua, BK.ronaa nogroTOBKy u ocy^ecTB.eHue nporpaMM no oöyneHuro rocygapcTBeHHbix u MyH^Hna.nbHbix c^y^a^ux,
-	pacmupeHueM KOHTaKTOB Me^gy rpa:®gaHaMu, Mo.oge^bro, HenpaBuTe.bcTBeHHbiMu op^aHU3a^uaMu, ynpe:®geHuaMu nenaTu u uH$opMa^uu; co3gaHue yc.OBuM g.a ga.bHeMmero pa3BuTua ToproBO-JKOHOMunecKux OTHomeHuM, ocHOBaHHbix Ha ^puH^u^ax pbiHOHHoM ^K0H0MUKU u B3auMOBbirogHoro coTpygHunecraa,
-	pa3BuTueM coTpygHunecraa b oö.acru TpaHcnopTa, BK.ronaa pa3BuTue TpaHcnopTHbix nepeBO3OK.
nocpegcTBOM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecraa b gaHHbix peruoHax oöecnenuBaeTca:
-	coBepmeHcTBOBaHue Mep no öopböe c Me:®gyHapogHbiM Teppopu3MOM,
-	cHu^eHue TpaHcrpaHuHHOH npecTynHocTu u gpyrux rao6a.bHbix yrpo3 6e3onacHocru;
-	öopböa c He3aKOHHOH Mu^pa^ueM u KOHTpaöaHgoM;
-	coxpaHeHue 3HanuMocru TpaHcnopTHbix KopugopoB, ra3O- u He^TenpoBogHbix MarucTpa.eM,
-	yBe.uneHue TparouTHbix noTOKOB Hepe3 Be.apycb;
-	pocT ^KC^opTa TOBapoB u yc.yr, u gpyrue.
B paMKax TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecraa Be.apycu, HaTBuu u Hutbh cy^ecrayeT BO3MO^HocTb co3gaHua eguHoM BogHoM Marucrpa.u c BbixogoM ToproBbix noTOKOB b eBponeMcKyro cucTeMy BogHbix nyreM ot Ba.TuKu go HepHoro Mopa.
Pa3BuTuro npurpaHuHHOH uH^pacrpyKTypbi cnocoöcTByeT geaTe.bHocrb eBpoperuoHOB «HeMaH» (ynacrauKu Poccua, no.bma, Be.apycb, HuTBa) u «O3epHbiM KpaM» (ynacTHuKu Be.apycb, HaTBua, HuTBa).
OcHOBHbie npoeKTH eBpoperuoHa «O3epHbiM KpaM»:
-	co3gaHue .aTBuMcKO-öe.opyccKoro uH$0pMa^u0HH0^0 ^mpa;
-	cogeMcraue pa3BuTuro Ma.bix u cpegHux npegnpuaTuM Ha TeppuTopuu eBpoperuoHa c n0M0^bro TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecraa;
-	pea.u3a^ua npoeKTa «O3epHbiM KpaM» - MeHeg^MeHT u MapKeTuHr ce.bcKoro Typu3Ma;
-	pa3BuTue npurpaHuHHHx TeppuTopuM;
-	ycoBepmeHcTBOBaHue Ky.uHapHbix yc.yr b HaTra.uu Ha ocHOBe K0H^e^^uu Ky.uHapHoro Hac.egua;
-	e^erogHbie $ecruBa.u HapogHoro TBopnecraa «^Bma - ^ayraBa - ^BuHa».
OcHOBHbie npoeKTH eBpoperuoHa «HeMaH»:
-	OTKpbiTue TypucTcKux ^upM ($u.ua.OB) Ha TeppuTopuax peruoHOB, Bxoga^ux b eBpoperuoH «HeMaH», b ^.ax pa3BuTua npurpaHuHHoro Typu3Ma b paMoHe ÄBrycTOBcKoro KaHa.a,
-	pa3BuTue Typu3Ma b eBpoperuoHe «HeMaH»,
-	e^erogHO npoBoguTca BbicraBKa-apMapKa «EBpoperuoH «HeMaH».
Ba^HUM acneKTOM ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 B3auMogeMcTBua Be.apycu c npurpaHuHHbiMu rocygapcTBaMu ^HTpa.bHoM u Boctohhom EBponbi aB.aeTca co3gaHue coBMecTHbix npegnpuaTuM u npegnpuaTuM co 100-npo^HTHbiM uHocrpaHHbiM KanuTa.OM, ux co3gaHue Hana.ocb b nepBoM no.OBuHe 90-x rogoB u npogo.^aeTca no Hacroa^ee BpeMa.
OgHuM u3 ^^^eKTUBH^Ix uHcrpyMeHTOB noggep^Ku TpaHcrpaHuHHoM geaTe.bHocru Be.apycu c HaTBueM u Hutbom aB.aerca nporpaMMa EBponeMcKoro uHcTpyMeHTa
goöpococegcTBa u napraepcraa (EH,UP) «HaTBua - HuTBa - Ee.apycb», KoTopaa npogo^^aeT Tpagu^uu TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecrBa Me^qy HaTBueM, Hutbom u Ee.apycbro, 3a.o:®eHHbie b ogHouMeHHoM nporpaMMe goöpococegcTBa EC Ha 2004-2006 rr., b paMKax KOTopoü pea^u30BaH0 14 npoeKim c öe.opyccKuMu napTHepaMu.
Ochobhom ^.bro gaHHoM nporpaMMH «B^aeTca cö.u^eHue ypoBHa co^ua.^bHO-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua pa3.uHHbix HacreM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro peruoHa 3a cneT coKpa^eHHA peruoHa.bHbix pa3.unuM, oöecneneHua ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 u c0^ua.^bH0^0 ö.arococToaHua u Ky.brypHoM ugeHTuHHocru ero «uTe.eM.
npu pea.u3a^uu gaHHoM nporpaMMH n.aHupyroTca c.egyro^ue HanpaB.eHua:
-	cogeMcrBue co^ua.^bHO-^KOHOMUHecKOMy pa3BuTuro, noggep^Ka öu3Heca u npegnpuHuMaTe.bCTBa;
-	ycu.eHue po.u crpaTerunecKoro pa3BuTua u n.aHupoBaHua Ha MecTHOM u peru0Ha.bH0M ypoBHe;
-	noBbimeHue gocrynHocru peruoHa Hepe3 pa3BuTue K0MMyHUKa^u0HH^Ix ceTeM, a TaK^e cooTBeTcrayro^ux yc.yr;
-	coxpaHeHue u noggep^Ka Ky.brypHoro u ucropunecKoro TpaHcrpaHuHHoro Typu3Ma;
-	pa3BuTue co^ua.bHO-Ky.bTypH^Ix ceTeM u noggep^Ky cooö^ecra;
-	3a^uTa oKpy^aro^eM cpegbi u coxpaHeHue npupogHbix pecypcoB;
-	noggep^Ka pa3BuTua o6pa3oBaHua; 3gpaBooxpaHeHua u co^ua.bHoM c^epbi;
-	pa3BuTue uH^pacrpyKTypbi u oöopygoBaHua nyHKToB norpaHuHHoro nponycKa;
-	y.ynmeHue ynpaB.eHua rpaHu^M u TaMo^eHH^ix npo^gyp.
K Hauöo.ee npuopmerHbiM HanpaB.eHuaM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecrBa Ee.apycu c HaTBueM u Hutbom «B.aeTca:
-	pacmupeHue HoMeHK.aTypbi ToBapoB b ToproB.e Me^qy gaHHbiMu cTpaHaMu;
-	npogBu^eHue öe.opyccKux ToBapoB b EBpony;
-	paccMoTpeHue Bonpoca o coBMecraoM cTpouTe.bcTBe aToMHoM ^.eKTpocTaH^uu;
-	oöecneneHue TpaHcnopTupoBKu He^Tu u3 BeHecy^.H Hepe3 nopTbi HaTBuu u Hutbh;
-	pa3BuTue c^epbi Typu3Ma;
-	pa3paöoTKa u pea.u3a^ua nporpaMM no 3a^uTe oKpy^aro^eM cpegbi u y.ynmeHuro ^KO.o^uHecKoM cuTya^uu b npurpaHuHHbix peruoHax;
-	pemeHue BonpocoB o öe3Bu3oBoM nepeceneHuu ^paHu^ «uTe.aMu npurpaHuHHbix peruoHoB u gpyruMu rpa^qaHaMu gaHHbix cTpaH.
CnncoK ^HTepaTypw
BHemHaa ToproB.» Pecnyö.uKu Ee.apycb: craTucTuHecKuM cöopHuK / Ha^uoHa.bHHM craTucTuHecKuM KoMuTeT, 2010. - 377 c.
TuxoMupoB A.B. OraomeHua Ee.apycu c cocegHuMu rocygapcrBaMu ^HTpa.bHoM u Boctohhom EBponH (no.bmeM, Hutbom, HaTBueM) b 1991-2001 rr. // www.elib.org.ua, 2006.
rpaHcnopTHbix u Hac.egua, pa3BuTue pa3BuTua MecrHbix
E^HMeHKo H.A.,
yo «EenOpyCCKHH T0pr0B0-3K0H0MuHecKuH yHHBepCHTeT nOTpeÖHTe^bCKOH K00^epa^UU»,
r. roMenb
nO^HTHHECKAH H nPABOBAH BA3A BE^APYCH nO BOnPOCAM PErHOHA^bHOrO H nPHrPAHHHHOrO COTPY^HHHECTBA C EBPOnEHCKHM COM3OM
Annoma^R
The legal provision of Belarus's regional development has been examined in the article. The basic principles, tasks and scope of the implementation of the Belarus's foreign policy, including cross-border cooperation, have been given. The legal basis for cooperation between the EU and Belarus at the regional and local levels has been indicated. The experience of establishing cross-border cooperation between Belarus and the Commonwealth of Independent States has been considered.
Pa3BuTuro goöpococegcKux oraomeHuü Eenapycb ygenaeT öonbmoe BHuMaHue. ^T0 06yc.n0B.neH0, BO-nepBbix, reononuranecKuM nono:®eHueM: Eenapycb aBnaeTca KopugopoM Me^gy EBponeücKuM Coro30M u PoccueM; Bo-BTopbix, ucropunecKuM onbrroM: Eenapycb u crpaHbi EBponeücKoro Coro3a (HuTBa, nonbma) Bxogunu b cocraB BenuKoro KHa^ecraa HuToBCKoro u Penu nocnonuToü.
B Hacroa^ee BpeMa goöpococegcKue oTHomeHua b nonuTunecKoü, ^K0H0MUHecK0H, HayHHoü u 0Öpa30BaTe.bH0H, KynbrypHoü u uH$0pMa^u0HH0H c^epax 0Ka3biBaroT nono^uTe.bHoe BnuaHue Ha c0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0e pa3BuTue rocygapcTBa u yKpenneHue ero KoHKypeHTocnocoÖHocTu.
npaBoBoe oöecneneHue peruoHanbHoro pa3BuTua b Eenapycu cocraBnaeT Koh^^ur ^ocy^apcmeeHHOü pe^U0HanbH0ü ^KOHOMU^ecKOü nonumuKU PecnyönuKU Eenapycb, b K0T0p0H Hamnu cBoe oTpa^eHue ^nu, npuopuTeTbi u MexaHu3Mbi peanu3a^uu rocygapcTBeHH0H peru0HanbH0H ^K0H0MUHecK0H nonuTuKu Ha gonrocponHyro nepcneKTuBy. [3]
CnegyeT oTMeTuTb, hto b Eenapycu peanu3a^ua peru0HanbH0H nonuTuKu hocut noKa ^HTpanu30BaHHbiH xapaKTep u Bonno^aeTca nocpegcTBoM rocygapcTBeHHbix nporpaMM:
•	nporpaMMa c0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua PecnyönuKu Eenapycb Ha 2006-2010 rogbi;
•	Ha^uoHanbHaa cTpaTerua ycroHHuBoro c0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua PecnyönuKu Eenapycb go 2020 roga;
•	rocygapcTBeHHaa KoMnneKcHaa nporpaMMa pa3BuTua peruoHoB, Manbix u cpegHux noceneHuü Ha 2007-2010 rogbi;
•	rocygapcTBeHHaa KoMnneKcHaa nporpaMMa B03p0^geHua u pa3BuTua cena Ha 20052010 rogw;
•	rocygapcTBeHHaa nporpaMMa uHH0Ba^u0HH0^0 pa3BuTua PecnyönuKu Eenapycb Ha 2007-2010 rogbi.
•	rocygapcTBeHHaa nporpaMMa c0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua u KoMnneKcHoro ucnonb30BaHua npupogHbix pecypcoB npunaTcKoro nonecba Ha 2010-2015 rogbi.
Ha peruoHanbHOM u n0KanbH0M ypoBHe pa3pa6aTbiBaroTca u peanu3yroTca nporpaMMbi c0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BUTua o6nacreM, paMOHOB, OTgenbHbix ropogoB no BpeMeHu ynpe:geHua ot roga go naTu neT.
Co BTopoH nonoBUHH 90-x rogoB XX BeKa b Eenapycu Hananu pa3pa6aTbiBaTbca u peanu3OBbiBaTbca CTpaTeruu ycroMnuBoro pa3BUTua TeppuTopuu (MecTHoro coo6^ecraa). HanpuMep, pa3pa6oTKa cTpaTeruu ycroMnuBoro pa3BUTua gna r.n. TypoBa ^uTKOBuncKoro paMoHa roMenbcKOH o6nacru, ^ucHeHcKoro Kpaa MuopcKoro paMoHa BuTe6cKoM o6nacTu u
gp.
npaBOBwe ocHOBbi ocy^ecraneHua nonuTUKu Eenapycu pernaMeHTupyroTca 3aKOHOM Pecny6nuKu Eenapycb ot 14 Hoa6pa 2005 r. M 60-3 «Oö yTBep^geHHH Ochobhbix HanpaB.ieHini BHyTpeHHefi h BHewHett no^HTHKH Pecnyö^HKH Eenapycb». B
cooTBeTcTBuu c gaHHbiM HopMaTUBHO-npaBOBHM aKTOM BHemHaa nonuTHKa Eenapycu peanu3yeTca cornacHo cnegyro^uM ^puH^u^aM:
•	pa3BHTue Ha ocHOBe o6^enpu3HaHHbix ^puH^u^0B u HopM Me:gyHapogHoro npaBa BcecTopoHHero coTpygHunecTBa c uHocrpaHHbiMu rocygapcTBaMu, Me:gyHapogHbiMu op^aHU3a^uaMu, B3auMHbiM yneT u co6nrogeHue uHTepecoB Bcex nneHOB Me:gyHapogHoro coo6^ecraa;
•	go6poBonbHocTb Bxo:geHua u ynacrua b Me:rocygapcTBeHHbix 06pa30BaHuax;
•	npuBep:eHHocTb nonuTUKe nocnegoBaTenbHoM geMunuTapu3a^uu Me:gyHapogHbix OTHomeHuü;
•	OTcyTCTBue TeppuTopuanbH^ix npeTerouM k conpegenbHbiM rocygapcTBaM, Henpu3HaHue TeppuTopuanbH^ix npuTa3aHuM k Pecny6nuKe Eenapycb. (ct. 23)
CornacHO HopM Ct. 25 b cneKTp 3agan BHemHeM nonuTUKu Pecny6nuKu Eenapycb BKnroneHbi:
•	paBHonpaBHaa uHTe^pa^ua Pecny6nuKu Eenapycb b MupoBoe nonuTunecKoe, ^K0H0MUHecK0e, HaynHoe, KynbTypHoe u uH$opMa^uoHHoe npocTpaHcTBo;
•	co3gaHue 6naronpuaTHbix BHemHenonuTunecKux u BHemHe^K0H0MunecKux ycnoBuM gna noBumeHHa ypoBHa 6narococroaHua Hapoga, pa3Burua nonuTunecKoro, ^K0H0MunecK0^0, HHTenneKTyanbHoro u gyxoBHoro ^0TeH^uana rocygapcTBa;
•	tyopMupoeanue doöpococedcKux omnomenuü c conpedenbUbiMU ^ocy^apcmeaMU.
BHemHaa nonuTHKa Eenapycu peanu3yeTca b cnegyro^ux c^epax:
•	BHemHe^K0H0MunecKaa geaTenbHocTb;
•	Me:gyHapogHoe ^K0H0MunecK0e coTpygHunecTBo;
•	Me:gyHapogHoe coTpygHunecTBo b o6nacTu KocMunecKoM geaTenbHocTu;
•	Me:gyHapogHoe BoeHHoe coTpygHunecTBo;
•	Me:gyHapogHoe coTpygHunecTBo no peanu3a^uu rocygapcTBeHHoM norpaHunHoM nonuTHKu;
•	Me:gyHapogHaa 6e3onacHocTb;
•	ryMaHHTapHoe coTpygHunecTBo u npaBa nenoBeKa;
•	Me:gyHapogHoe coTpygHunecTBo b o6nacTu 3gpaB00xpaHeHua, 06pa30BaHua, HayKu, uH^opMa^uu u HH$opMaTH3a^HH, KynbTypw, cnopTa, Typu3Ma, oxpaHbi OKpy:aro^eM cpegbi;
•	Me:gyHapogHoe coTpygHunecTBo b o6nacTu npegynpe:geHua u nuKBuga^uu npe3BbinaMHbix cuTya^uM;
•	coTpygHunecTBo b o6nacTu Kogu$uKa^uu u nporpeccuBHoro pa3BUTua Me:gyHapogHoro npaBa;
•	TpaHcrpaHunHoe coTpygHunecTBo.
OcHOBHbiMu HanpaBneHuaMu b c^epe TpaHcrpaHunHoro coTpygHunecTBa aBnaroTca (ct. 37):
•	B3aniviogencTBne c HHocrpaHHbiMH rocygapcTBaMH Ha pernoHa^bHoM h MecTHOM ypoBHHx b	onepaTHBHoro pemeHHH npiirpaHiiMHbix npoö^eM,
npuBneneHua uHocrpaHHbix uHBecTu^uü gna c0BepmeHcTB0BaHHa npurpaHuHHoü u TpaHcnopTHoü uH^pacTpyKTypu, co3gaHua KoMMepHecKux op^aHU3a^uü c uHocrpaHHbiMu uHBecTu^uaMu;
•	pa3pa6oTKa u peanu3a^ua peruoHanbHbix npoeKToB TexHunecKoro cogeücTBua, ^uHaHcupyeMMx Me^gyHapogHMMu op^aHU3a^uaMu u nporpaMMaMu b o6nacru ^K0H0MUKU, TeppuTopuanbHoro nnaHupoBaHua, npegnpuHuMaTenbcTBa, uH^pacrpyKTypbi, uH^opMa^uu, oxpaHu oKpy^aro^eü cpegu, o6pa3oBaHua, Kynbrypu, Typu3Ma u cnopTa;
•	noo^peHHe eBpoperHOHOB KaK ^opMu npnrpaHHHHoro coTpygHHHecTBa b ^nax crna^uBaHua pa3nuHuü b ypoBHax C0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua TeppuTopuü, pa3BuTua npurpaHuHHoü uH^pacrpyKTypbi, coBMecTHoro pemeHua npo6neM b c^epe oxpaHu npupogu, npeogoneHua guc6anaHca b Bonpocax 3aHaTocru HaceneHua, KynbrypHbix u a3biK0Bbix 6apbepoB.
B Eenapycu co3gaH rocygapcTBeHHbiü opraH - Me^eedoMcmeennuü KOopöuna^OHHbiü coeem no eonpocaM npuspaHUHHoso compyÖHunecmea c conpeöenbHbiMU cmpanaMU, uMero^uü cTaTyc K0HcynbraTuBH0r0 opraHa no K00pguHa^uu coBMecTHoü geaTenbHocTu opraHoB rocygapcTBeHHoro ynpaBneHua npu peanu3a^uu nonuTuKu npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa Pecny6nuKu Eenapycb c conpegenbHbiMu cTpaHaMu (HaTBueü, Hutboü, nonbmeü, YKpauHoü u Poccueü). MpugunecKue ochobm co3gaHua u ^yH^uoHupoBaHua gaHHoro CoBera yraep^geHbi nocraHoBneHueM CoBeTa Muhuctpob Pecny6nuKu Eenapycb ot 18 geKa6pa 2004 roga N°1602 «O co3gaHuu Me«BegoMcTBeHoro K00pguHa^u0HH0^0 coBeTa no BonpocaM npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa c conpegenbHMMu cTpaHaMu».
Ochobhmmu 3aganaMu CoBeTa aBnaroTca:
•	K00pguHa^ua geaTenbHocru opraHoB rocygapcTBeHHoro ynpaBneHua b ^nax Bbipa6oTKu eguHoü ^03u^uu 6enopyccKoü cropoHbi no BonpocaM npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa c conpegenbHMMu cTpaHaMu;
•	onpegeneHue npuopuTeToB npu peanu3a^uu ochobhmx HanpaBneHuü nonuTuKu npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa c conpegenbHbiMu cTpaHaMu;
•	pa3pemeHue KoMnneKca npo6neMHbix BonpocoB, B03HuKaro^ux npu peanu3a^uu ochobhmx HanpaBneHuü nonuTuKu npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa;
•	paccM0TpeHue npoeKToB ^neBux nporpaMM, nnaH0B, Me^gyHapogHbix goroBopoB b c^epe npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa c conpegenbHbiMu cTpaHaMu.
PaccMaTpuBaa npaB0Bbie ochobm gByxcTopoHHux oTHomeHuü, cnegyeT oTMeTuTb, hto Eenapycb B3auMogeücTByeT c EBponeücKuM Coro30M Ha ocHoBaHuu CornameHua o napTHepcTBe u coTpygHuHecTBe Me«gy CCCP u E^C 1989 roga, a Ea30B0e cornameHue o napTHepcTBe u coTpygHuHecTBe Me«gy Eenapycbro u EBponeücKuM Coro30M 1995 roga He Bcrynuno b cuny. [2, C. 15]
npaB0Bbie ochobm paM0HHbix ycnoBuü coTpygHuHecTBa Ha peruoHanbHoM u MecTHoM ypoBHax o6ecneHuBaeT EeponeücKan Koneen^n o npuzpanunnoM compydnunecmee meppumopuanbubix coo6w,ecme u enacmeü (1980 r., Magpug). Eenapycb npuMeHaeT nono^eHua gaHHoü K0HBeH^uu c 1997 roga. CornacHo HopM yKa3aHH0ü Bbime K0HBeH^uH cy6teKTaMu coTpygHuHecTBa aBnaroTca opraHbi MecTHoro ynpaBneHua u caMoynpaBneHua, geücTByro^ue b paMKax BHyTpeHHux 3aK0H0gaTenbcTB.
CoTpygHuHecTBo Ha peruoHanbHoM npurpaHuHH0M ypoBHe ocy^ecranaeTca nocpegcTBoM co3gaHua eBpeperuoHoB, TaKoBux b Hacroa^uü M0MeHT b Eenapycu ^yH^uoHupyeT 5, b tom Hucne b cocTaB HeTupex eBpoperuoHoB BxogaT agMuHucTpaTuBHue eguHu^i EC: «Eyr», «EenoBe«cKaa ny^a», «HeMaH» u «O3epHbiü Kpaü».
B ocHOBy npaBOBoro oöecneneHua peruoHanbHoro u npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa EBponeMcKoro Coro3a nono^eHa EBponeMcKaa XapTua MecTHoro caMoynpaB.eHua CoBeTa EBponbi 1985 r., (Bcrynuna b cuny gna YKpauHbi, MongoBbi u PoccuMcKoM Oegepa^uu). OgHaKO, Be.apycb He nognucana gaHHbiM goKyMeHT.
B OcHOBy coTpygHunecTBa Benapycu u EBponeMcKoro Coro3a, BKnronaa npurpaHuHHMM acneKT, nono^eHbi cnegyro^ue goKyMeHTbi:
•	ffosoeop Mewdy PecnyönuKoü Eenapycb u PecnyönuKoü nonbma o doöpococedcmee u dpywenrnönoM compydnmecmee, 3aKnroneHHoro b r.BapmaBe 23 uroHa 1992 r.
•	ffosoeop o doöpococedcmee u compydnmecmee Mewdy PecnyönuKoü Eenapycb u Humoecmü PecnyönuKoü (nognucaHHbiM 6 $eBpa.a 1995 roga, paTu$u^upoBaH nocraHOB.eHueM BepxoBHoro CoBeTa PecnyönuKu Benapycb ot 25 anpena 1996 r. N 216-XIII).
•	Coenamenun Mewdy npaeumenbcmeoM PecnyönuKu Eenapycb u npaeumenbcmeoM fiameuücKoü PecnyönuKu oö ocnoenux npun^nax mpanczpanmnozo compydnunecmea (nognucaHO 16 Maa 1998 r., Bcrynuno b cuny 9 urona 1998 r.).
BbimeyKa3aHHbie ^oroBopbi u CornameHue ycraHaBnuBaroT, hto npegMeTOM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa öygeT: pa3BuTue peruoHOB, ropogoB u cenbcKux paMOHOB; TeppuTopuanbHoe nnaHupoBaHue u xo3aMcTBo; TpaHcnopT u K0MMyHUKa^uu (cpegcTBa oö^ecraeHHoro TpaHcnopTa, goporu, a^po^opTM, BogHbie nyTu u nopTbi Ha BHyTpeHHux BogHbix nyTax); pa3BuTue norpaHuHHbix nyHKTOB nponycKa u npurpaHuHHoM uH^pacrpyKTypbi; oxpaHa npupogbi u OKpy^aro^eM cpegbi (cHu^eHue 3arpa3HeHua Bogbi, BO3gyxa u noHBbi, crpouTenbcTBO npupogooxpaHHbix oöbeKTOB, pa3BuTue peKpea^uoHHMx 30h); npoMbimneHHoe coTpygHunecTBO (K00^epa^u0HHMe cBa3u, co3gaHue coBMecTHbix npegnpuaTuM); ToproBbiM oÖMeH; ce.bcKoe x03aMcTB0 (pa3BuTue arpoTexHuKu, nepepaöoTKa u cömt cenbcKoxo3aMcTBeHHoM npogy^uu); 06pa30BaHue u HayHHbie ucc.egoBaHua (npo^eccuoHanbHoe oöyneHue, noMoqb no u3yneHuro a3biKa gpyroro rocygapcTBa); oxpaHa 3gopoBba; Typu3M, OTgbix u cnopT; B3auMHaa n0M0^b b cnynae KaTacTpo^ u ctuxuMhmx 6egcTBuM ^nugeMuu, naBogKu, no:®apbi, npoMbimneHHbie KaTacrpo^bi, TpaHcnopTHwe npoucmecTBua). A TaK^e ycraHOBneHue u pa3BuTue npaMbix KOHTaKTOB u coTpygHunecTBa Me«gy ux agMuHucTpaTuBHO-TeppuTopuanbHbiMu eguHu^Mu. Ocoöoe BHuMaHue öygeT npugaBaTbca coTpygHunecTBy b npurpaHuHHbix paMoHax.
•	Coznawenun o napmnepcKux u dpywecKux KonmaKmax Mewdy zopodaMu u3 npuzpanmnux peeuonoe, HanpuMep Me«gy BpecTOM u Bana nognacKa (1991 rog) c ^nbro pacmupeHue napTHepcKux KOHTaKTOB nepe3 BcecTopoHHee coTpygHunecTBO Me«gy gByMa ropogaMu;
•	ffosoeop c nonbmeü o npaeunax nprnpanunnozo deuwenun (2010 rog). C anpena 2011 roga ycraHaB.uBaeTca ynpo^eHHbiM nopagoK nepeceneHua rocygapcTBeHHoM rpaHu^i gna «uTeneM npurpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM Benapycu u no.bmu. K npurpaHuHHbiM TeppuTopuaM 0TH0caTca «TeppuTopuanbHO-agMuHucTpaTuBHbie eguHu^i, pacnono^eHHbie He ga.ee neM b 30 km ot oö^eM rpaHu^i». Ec.u nacrb HaceneHHoro nyHKTa HaxoguTca Me«gy 30-m u 50-m Ku.OMeTpaMu ot rpaHu^i, to ^T0T HaceneHHbiM nyHKT TaK^e npu3HaeTca nacrbro npurpaHuHHoM TeppuTopuu. nepeneHb HaceneHHbix nyHKTOB, pacnono^eHHbix Ha npurpaHuHHoM TeppuTopuu, u3.o^eH b npuno^eHuu k goroBopy. npaBO Ha ynpo^eHHbiM nopagoK nepeceneHua rpaHu^i uMeroT «menu npurpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM, npo:®uBaro^ue Ha hux He MeHee Tpex neT. ^na ynpo^eHHoro npoxo^geHua rpaHu^i ohu gon^Hbi nonynuTb c^e^uanbHoe pa3pemeHue Ha npurpaHuHHoe gBu^eHue (cöop 3a Bbigany pa3pemeHua - 20 eBpo) u npegocraBuTb goKyMeHT, ygocroBeparo^uM nuHHocrb (nacnopT). Pa3pemeHua BbigaroTca Ha cpoK ot gByx go naTu neT u garoT npaBO npeöbiBaTb Ha TeppuTopuu gpyroro rocygapcTBa go 90 gHeM b TeneHue nonyroga. OgHaKO Bce rpa^gaHe npu ^T0M o6a3aHbi 3aperucTpupoBaTbca Ha TeppuTopuu gpyroro rocygapcTBa b
ycraHoB.eHHoM nopagKe. AHa.oruHHbie goroBopbi nognucaHbi Ee.apycbro c HaTBueM u Hutbom.
• Co^nameHue Mewdy Ha^onanbnuM cmamucmunecKUM KOMumemoM PecnyönuKU Eenapycb u npedcedamemM ^eHmpanbHO^o cmamucmu^ecKO^o ynpaeneHun PecnyönuKU nomrna o compydHunecmee c oönacmu cmamucmuKU (Bcrynu.o b cu.y 7 aBrycra 2009 roga) npegno.araeT pacmupeHue oÖMeHa craTucTunecKoM uH$opMa^ueM, u3gaHue coBMecTHHx craTucruHecKux cöophukob, xapaKTepu3yro^ux cocroaHue npurpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM. nogoÖHwe cor.ameHua nognucaHbi Ee.apycbro c HaTBueM u Hutbom.
TaKuM 0Öpa30M, b Ee.apycu co3gaHbi no.uTunecKue u npaB0Bbie ochobh g.a ^$$eKTUBH0^0 gByxcTopoHHero corpygHunecTBa c cocegHuMu rocygapcTBaMu-H.eHaMu EBponeMcKoro Coro3a, ho, b ochobhom, ohu HanpaB.eHbi Ha Ha^uoHa.bHHM u TpaHcrpaHuHHbiM ypoBHu.
OgHaKo, Ee.apycb uMeeT gocraToHHo ycnemHbiM onuT Ha.a^uBaHua npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa b paMKax Cogpy^ecraa He3aBucuMbix rocygapcTB.
B Moge.bHoM 3aKoHe «O npurpaHuHHoM coTpygHunecTBe» (nocraHoB.eHue Me^nap.aMeHTcKoM accaMÖ.eu rocygapcTB - ynacTHuK0B CHr ot 31 oKTaöpa 2007 r. N 29-18) 3aKoHogaTe.bHo 3aKpen.eHbi c.egyro^ue noHaTua: npurpaHuHHoe coTpygHunecrBo, ynacTHuKu npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa, cor.ameHue o npurpaHuHHoM coTpygHunecTBe, a TaK^e onpege.eHbi ^puH^u^bI, ^.b u 3agana npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa, HanpaB.eHua u Bugbi geaTe.bHocru b gaHHoM oö.acru, ^puH^u^bI u ^opMM rocygapcTBeHHoM noggep^Ku pa3BuTua npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa.
KoHBeH^uu o npurpaHuHHoM coTpygHunecTBe rocygapcTB - ynacTHuK0B Cogpy^ecraa He3aBucuMbix rocygapcTB (YKa3 npe3ugeHTa Pecnyö.uKu Ee.apycb ot 30 anpe.a 2009 r. N 222) per.aMeHTupyeT noHaTua «npurpaHuHHoe coTpygHunecTBo» u «npurpaHuHHbie TeppuTopuu», a TaK^e onpege.aroTca HanpaB.eHua ocy^ecTB.eHua npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa.
B ^.ax K00pguHa^uu MHorocTopoHHero B3auMogeMcTBua rocygapcTB - ynacTHuK0B CHr b pemeHuu BonpocoB ycroMnuBoro ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua peruoHoB u npurpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM, oöecneneHua 6e3onacHocru rpa^gaH, yKpen.eHua gpy^ÖM u goöpococegcTBa rocygapcTB - ynacTHuK0B CHr co3gaH CoBeT no Me^peru0Ha.bH0My u npurpaHuHH0My coTpygHunecTBy CHr, cocroa^uM u3 pyKoBoguTe.eM MuHucrepcTB (BegoMcTB), oTBeTcTBeHH^ix 3a Me^peruoHa.bHoe u npurpaHuHHoe c0TpygHunecTB0. Co3gaHue gaHHoro CoBeTa 3aK0H0gaTe.bH0 3aKpen.eH0 b Cor.ameHuu o CoBeTe no Me^peru0Ha.bH0My u npurpaHunH0My coTpygHunecTBy rocygapcTB - ynacTHuK0B CHr (YKa3 npe3ugeHTa Pecnyö.uKu Ee.apycb ot 30 anpe.a 2009 r. N 223).
TaKuM 0Öpa30M, Ee.apycb, oö.agaa ^$$eKTUBHbIM onbiToM npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa b paMKax CHr u uMea 3aK0H0gaTe.bHyro ocHoBy g.a pa3Buraa coTpygHunecTBa co crpaHaMu EC, cnocoÖHa ycnemHo pa3BuBaTb npurpaHuHHoe peruoHa.bHoe c0TpygHunecTB0 c no.bmeM, HutboM u HaTBueM. HuTepaTypa
1.	CuBorpaKoB, O. MecTHaa noBecTKa - 21 KaK uHcTpyMeHT ycroMnuBoro pa3BuTua TeppuTopuu / O. CuBorpaKuB. - Muhck: nPOOH b Pecnyö.uKe Ee.apycb, 2009. - 127c.
2.	CKpunKo, A.A. AKTya.bHbie Bonpocbi pa3BuTua oTHomeHuM Pecnyö.uKu Ee.apycb c EBponeMcKuM Coro30M, b tom nuc.e b paMKax «BocroHHoro napTHepcraa»: npoö.eMbi u nepcneKTuBbi / A.A. CKunKo // Ee.apycb b coBpeMeHHoM Mupe: MaTepua.bi VIII Me^gyHap. Hayn. koh$., nocBa^. 88-.eTuro 0Öpa30BaHua Ee.opyc. roc. YH-Ta, Muhck, 30 okt. 2009r. / pegKo..: B.r. fflagypcKuM [u gp.]. - Muhck: TeceM, 2009. - C. 13-20.
3.	OaTeeB, B.C. nepcneKTuBHbie HanpaB.eHua coBepmeHcTBoBaHua peruoHa.bHoM no.uTuKu u MecTHoro caMoynpaB.eHua b Pecnyö.uKe Ee.apycb // npoö.eMbi np0rH03up0BaHua u rocygapcTBeHHoro pery.upoBaHua c0^ua.bH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0
pa3BuTua: MaTepuanbi IX Me^gyHap. Hayn. koh$. (Muhck, 16-17 okt. 2008 r.): b 4 t. T.1 / PegKon.: C.C.nonoHuK [u gp.]. - Mh.: HH3H MuH-Ba ^K0H0MUKU Pecn. Eenapycb, 2008. -C. 66-78.
4. http://news.tut.by/144502.html.
Heßedeea C.H.,
doKmop ^KOHOMU^ecKUX HayK, npotyeccop, 3ae. Ka^eöpoü Mupoeoü u Ha^U0HanbH0ü ^KOHOMUKU Een0pyccK0^0 mop^oeo-^K0H0MU^ecK0^0 yHueepcumema nompeöumenbCKoü Koonepa^u, roMenb
PO^b PEry^HPOBAHHH 3APABOTHOH n^ATbl B HHTE^PA^HOHHbIX nPO^CCAX B PAMKAX BOCTOHHOrO
nAPTHEPCTBA
OnbiT co3gaHua EBponeHcKoro coro3a cBugeTenbcTByeT o 3HanuTenbH0M BHuMaHuu co cropoHH npaBuTenbcTB eBponeHcKux rocygapcTB k BonpocaM perynupoBaHua 3apaÖ0TH0H nnaTbi u e^e b öonbmeü Mepe - k ypoBHaM onnaTH Tpyga b rocygapcTBax, ^opMupyro^eroca EBpocoro3a.
B nocnegHue rogbi gBag^Toro cToneTua Bonpoc 06 ypoBHe onnaTH Tpyga, b nacTHocTu, o pa3Mepax MuHuManbHoH 3apa6oTHoü nnaTH 3aHuMan Ba^Hoe MecTo b geaTenbHocTu opraHoB EC, nocKonbKy rnyöoKue pa3nunua b onnaTe Tpyga (a, b K0HeHH0M cneTe, b u3gep^Kax npegnpuHuMaTeneü) Me^gy oTgenbHbiMu eBponeücKuMu crpaHaMu cTaBunu nog Bonpoc ^$$eKTUBH0CTb co3gaHua «eguHoro C0^uanbH0^0 npocrpaHcTBa» u Mornu cepbe3H0 noBnuaTb Ha cBoöogy nepegBu^eHua KanuTanoB, ToBapoB, ycnyr u paöoneü cunbi.
B cBoro onepegb rnaBHaa ^nb npoeKTa «BocroHHoe napTHepcrao», co3gaHHoro EBponeücKuM coro30M, - cönu^eHue EC c mecrbro cTpaHaMu 6biBmero CCCP (Ä3ep6aHg^aH0M, ÄpMeHueü, Eenapycbro, rpy3ueü, MongoBoH, yKpauHoü). B nogo6Hbix ycnoBuax gna Bbime nepenucneHHbix cTpaH aKTyanu3upyroTca Bonpocbi, cBa3aHHbie c MaKcuManbHMM npuönu^eHueM cucreMbi perynupoBaHua onnaTH Tpyga k T0My MexaHu3My, kotophh c^opMupoBanca b cTpaHax c pa3BuT0H phhohhoh ^K0H0MUK0H, u noBbimeHueM ypoBHa 3apaÖ0TH0H nnaTH gna oöecneneHua ^K0H0MUHecK0H 6e3onacHocTu b paKypce coxpaHeHua gna Ha^u0HanbH0H ^K0H0MUKU Hau6onee aKTuBHbix TpygoBbix pecypcoB.
ypoBeHb geHe^Hoü 3apa60TH0H nnaTH aBnaeTca Ba^HeümuM co^uanbHHM uHguKaTopoM, ^aKTopoM, 0Ka3MBaro^uM cy^ecTBeHHoe B03geücTBue KaK Ha geaTenbHocTb cy6beKT0B x03aMcTB0BaHua, TaK u Ha ^yH^uoHupoBaHue ^K0H0MUKU b ^noM, Bnuaro^uM Ha pacxogbi HaeMHbix pa60THuK0B, goxogbi u npu6binb npegnpuHuMaTenen, noTpe6uTenbcKuü cnpoc u uHBecTu^uu, arperupoBaHHbrä BbinycK npogy^uu u ypoBeHb 3aHaTocTu.
Ponb rocygapcTBa b npo^cce perynupoBaHua 3apa6oTHoM nnaTH b cTpaHax c pa3BuT0H phhohhoh ^K0H0MUK0H cBoguTca rnaBHbiM 06pa30M k BbmonHeHuro C0^ua^bH0H $yH^uu nocpegcTBoM npeuMy^ecraeHHo KocBeHHbix MeTogoB B03geMcrBua no o6ecneneHuro rapaHTupoBaHHoro MuHuMyMa goxogoB HaceneHua nyTeM ycTaH0BneHua MuHuManbHoH 3apa6oTHoM nnaTH, BBegeHua o6a3aTenbHocTu KoppeKTupoBKu onnaTH Tpyga b cBa3u c pocroM ^h, npoBegeHua onpegeneHHoM HanoroBoM nonuTuKu. MacmTa6w npaMoro B03geMcrBua rocygapcTBa Ha ypoBeHb u cooTHomeHua b 3apa6oTHoM nnaTe orpaHuneHbi numb rocygapcTBeHHHMu op^aHU3a^uaMu, ho u npu ^T0M ynuTbiBaroTca o6^ue ycnoBua onnaTH, cno^HBmueca Ha pwHKe Tpyga. B HacTHbix npoMbimneHHbix KoMnaHuax Bonpocw ycTaH0BneHua u perynupoBaHua 3apa6oTHoM nnaTH pemaroTca b paMKax KonneKTuBHo-goroBopHoro npo^cca. OTMeTuM, hto cucTeMa perynupoBaHua 3apa6oTHoM nnaTH, cno^HBmaaca b Hacroa^ee BpeMa b Pecny6nuKe Eenapycb, b nonHoM Mepe cooTBeTCTByeT
BbimeHa3BaHHbiM acneKTaM (pucyHoK 1).
rapaHTHH
MHHHMa^bHOrO
3apaöoTKa,
uHgeKca^uu b
nepuogw
ycu.neHua
UH$.^a^UU,
co^ua.^bHo cnpaBeg^HBoro Hanorooö^o^e Hua
npo^eccuoHa^bH we coro3bi
Coro3bi npegnpHHHMaTen
Tapu^Hbie coraameHua
HaeMHwe paÖOTHHKH
HaHHMaTe^H
KoHTpaKTa^ua pa6oneM cu.nbi
OCHOBHWe HHCTHTyTbl H HHCTHTy^HOHa AbHue $aKTOpbI
PucyHoK 1 - B3aHMOCB33b 3apaÖOTHOH nnaTbl c UHCTUTy^UOHa.^bHbIMU ^aKTOpaMH
HccnegoBaHue onbrra Pecny6.nuKu Be^apycb b oö^acTH pery.nupoBaHua on.naTbi Tpyga Ha 0CH0Be ycraHoB.neHua MHHHMa^bHOH 3apa6oTHoM n^aTH no3Bo.naeT BbiaBuTb no3HTHBHwe TeHgeH^uu, xapaKTepHwe gna coBpeMeHHoro ^Ta^a TpaHc$opMa^uoHHbIx npeoöpa30BaHHH. 3aKoHogaTe.nbHo-npaBoBbie Mepw nocnegHux neT, Ha^.neHHbie Ha noBbimeHue ponu MuHuMa.nbHoM 3apa6oTHoM n^aTH u ee pery.nupoBaHua, npegonpege.nu.nu HanpaB^eHHocTb k BoccraHoB.neHuro ee co^ua.^bHoM u Bocnpou3BogcTBeHHoM $yH^uM. Mepw npaMoro ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pery.nupoBaHua, opueHTupoBaHHbie Ha noBwmeHue pea^bHoro cogep^aHua MuHuMa^bHoß 3apa6oTHoM n^aTH, cnoco6cTByroT BoccraHoB.neHuro Bwno^HeHua ero He To^bKo co^ua.^bHoM u Bocnpou3BogcTBeHHoM, ho u CTuMy.nupyro^eM u pery.nupyro^eM $yH^uM, MoTuBupya cyöbeKTbi xo3aMcTBoBaHua k ^$$eKTUBHOMy ucno^b3oBaHuro paöoneM cu^h. AHTuuH$.^a^uoHHbIe Mepw npaBuTe^bcraa co3ga^u Bo3Mo^HocTb Hapa^uBaHua pa3MepoB MuHuMa^bHoü 3apa6oTHoM n^aTH, noBHmeHua ee pea^bHoro cogep^aHua npu no3uTuBHoM guHaMuKe uH$.^a^uu.
TeHgeH^ua onepe^aro^ero pocTa MuHuMa^bHoü 3apa6oTHoM nnaTbi b cpaBHeHuu co cpegHeM 3apa6oTHoM nnaToM no3Bo.nu.na noBbicuTb pea^bHwe goxogw Hu3Koon^anuBaeMHx rpynn Hace^eHua, yMeHbmuTb go.nro HaceneHua, Haxoga^eroca 3a nepToM 6egHocTu, c6^u3uTb ypoBHu noTpe6^eHua Hu3Koon^anuBaeMHx u gpyrux KaTeropuM pa6oTHuKoB.
0TKa3 npaBuTe.bcTBa ot HacToro nepecMOTpa pa3MepoB MuHuMa.bHOH 3apa6oTHoH n.aTw Bno.He o6ocHOBaH, nocKO.bKy gaHHbiH nogxog aB.aeTca MeHee uH$.aToreHHbiM u no3BO.aeT pe3y.bTaTuBHO 3ageHcTBOBaTb MexaHu3M uHgeKca^uu 3apa6oTHoH nnaTbi. O bhcokoh cTeneHu yHu$uKa^uu pery.upoBaHua Ha ocHOBe ycraHOB.eHua MuHuMa.bHOH 3apa6oTHoM n.aTbi b Pecny6.uKe Be.apycb u cTpaHax c pa3BuTOH pmhohhoh ^K0H0MUK0H, b HacTHocTu, eBponeücKux (OpaH^ua), CBugeTe.bCTByroT gaHHbie Ta6.u^i 1.
Ta6.u^ 1 — nopagoK ycraHOB.eHua u nepecMOTpa MuHuMa.bHOH 3apa6oTHoH n.aTbi no HeKOTOpbIM cTpaHaM_
CTpaHa	^opMa ycTaHoB.eHH«	nopagoK nepecMoTpa
Be.apycb	Ha Ha^u0Ha.bH0M ypoBHe (MecaHHaa, noHacoBaa)	EserogHO (npeuMy^ecraeHHO no cocToaHuro Ha 1 aHBapa), npu Heo6xoguMOCTu Ha^e b cooTBeTCTBuu c guHaMuKOH uHgeKca noTpe6uTe.bCKux ^h
OpaH^Ha	Ha Ha^u0Ha.bH0M ypoBHe (noHacoBaa)	EserogHO (no cocToaHuro Ha 1 uro.a) noc.e cooTBeTCTByro^ero cor.ameHua c Ha^u0Ha.bH0H KOMuccueü no KO..eKTuBHbiM neperoBopaM; b CooTBeTCTBuu c guHaMuKOH 06^eHa^u0Ha.bH0^0 uHgeKca ^h Ha noTpe6uTe.bCKue TOBapw u yc.yru
^noHua	Ha ypoBHe npe^eKTyp (noHacoBaa u gHeBHaa)	PeruoHa.bHHH MuHuMyM 3apa6oTHoH n.aTbi nepecMaTpuBaeTca oguH pa3 b rog
CfflA	Ha ^egepa.bHOM ypoBHe u Ha ypoBHe mTaTOB (noHacoBaa)	rocygapcTBO He HeceT HuKaKux o6a3aTe.bCTB no pery.apHOMy nepecMOTpy MuHuMyMa 3apa6oTHoH n.aTw
npu pa3pa6oTKe geHCTBeHHoro MexaHu3Ma uHgeKca^uu BasHO ero ugeHTu^u^upoBaTb c MacmTa6HbiMu MepaMu aHTuuH^.a^u0HH0H no.uTuKu. npu ^T0M c.egyeT npaBu.bHO o6ocHOBaTb Ha6op TOBapoB u yc.yr, OTpasaro^ux pea.bHwe u3MeHeHua noTpe6uTe.bCKux ^h, u MesuHgeKca^uoHHbIe uHTepBa.w; npegoTBpaTuTb BO3MOSHocTb pacKpyHuBaHua uH^.a^u0HH0H cnupa.u, HapymeHue Bbino.HeHua 3apa6oTHoM n.aTOH cruMy.upyro^eM $yH^uu, cucreMaTuHecKoro 3aBbimeHua u3gepseK, npo^ccoB phhohhoh caMope^y.a^uu.
MHoroBapuaHTHocTb MexaHu3Ma uHgeKca^uu (Ta6.u^ 2) 3apa6oTHoH n.aTbi c.egyeT paccMaTpuBaTb b 3aBucuMocTu ot oco6eHHocreM KOHKpeTHoro ^Ta^a ^K0H0MUHecK0H TpaHC^opMa^uu. B coBpeMeHHwx yc.OBuax uHgeKca^ua MOseT 6wTb npuMeHeHa, c ogHoü cropoHbi, KaK CTa6u.u3a^uoHHaa Mepa, HanpaB.eHHaa Ha o6ecneHeHue C0^ua.bH0H .eruTuMHOCTu pe^opM, a c gpyroH cropoHbi, KaK aHTuuH^.a^uoHHHH ^.eMeHT, Ha^.eHHbrä Ha npegoTBpa^eHue pacc.oeHua Hace.eHua no ypoBHro goxogoB.
Hcc.egoBaHue MHoroBapuaHTHbix nogxogoB k nocTpoeHuro cucreMbi uHgeKca^uu Ha OcHOBe Bwge.eHHwx HaMu K.accu^uKa^uoHHHx npu3HaKOB (cTeneHb K0M^eHca^uu pocTa ^h, BpeMa u nepuoguHHOCTb K0M^eHca^u0HHbIx Bbin.aT) CBugeTe.bCTByeT o Heo6xoguMOCTu npuMeHeHua Ha c0BpeMeHH0M ^Ta^e TpaHC$opMa^uoHHbIx npeo6pa3OBaHuü ^K0H0MUKU HacruHHOH peTpocneKTuBHoH u npeuMy^ecraeHHO HenpepwBHOH uHgeKca^uu goxogoB Hace.eHua b CBa3u c p0CT0M ^h.
HecMOTpn Ha no3HTHBHyro TeHgeH^Hro ^0^Ta^H0^0 yBe.HHeHHH HHfleKcnpyeMOH Be^HHHHu geHe^Hux goxogoB Haee.ieHim ^.ecooöpa3Ho onTHMH3upoBaTb pacnpege.eHHe HH$.i^HoHHoro y^epöa, pa3paöoTaTb 3aTyxaro^yro wKa.iy KoivineHcamioHHbix Bun^ai, npeBumarauux HopMaTUB iiHgeKcamiii geHe^Hwx goxogoB Haee.ieHim,	Toro, htoöm b MeHbmeü Mepe y^eM.HTb
HHTepeCbl BbICOKOKBa.1H(l)HUIipOBaHHbIX paÖOTHUKOB.
Ta6nuua 2 — npeuMy^ecraa u HegocTaTKu ochobhhx sneMeHTOB MexaHU3Ma HHgeKcauuu
K^aCCH^HK	Biigbi	npeHMymecTBa	HegOCTaTKH
aUHOHHbH	HHgeKca		
npu3HaK	UHU		
CTeneHb	nonHaa	peanu3a^ua ^puH^u^a	pa3BHTue uH^na^uoHH^Ix npo^ccoB,
K0M^eHca^H		co^uanbHoM	Heo6xoguMocTb npuBneneHua
u pocTa ^h		cnpaBegnuBocTu, pacmupeHue noKynaTenbcKoro cnpoca	3HanuTenbH^ix cpegcTB roc6rag:eTa u KOMMepnecKux op^aHU3a^uM
	nacTunH	^K0H0Mua geHe:Hbix	y^eMneHue uHTepecoB
	aa	cpegcTB Ha ocy^ecTBneHue K0M^eHca^u0HH^Ix BbmnaT	BHC0K0KBanU^U^Up0BaHHHX pa6OTHUKOB, HHBenupoBaHue pa3MepoB 3apa6oTHoM nnaTbi, cgep:uBaHue pocTa noKynaTenbcKoro cnpoca
BpeMa	o:ugae	o6ecnenuBaeT	Mo:eT aBUTbca uH^naToreHHbiM
K0M^eHca^H	Maa	co^uanbHoe	^aKTopoM, «T0nnK0M» gna
ohhhx		cnOKOMcTBUe B	pacKpynuBaHua cnupanu uH$na^uu
BbmnaT		o6^ecrae, cTUMynupyeT pocT cnpoca u noTpe6neHua	
	peTpocn	cgep:uBaeT TeMnbi	Hanunue BpeMeHHoro nara Me:gy
	eKTUBHa	uH^na^uu,	nepuogaMu pocTa ^h u
	a	KOMneHcupyeT ^aKTunecKuM pocT ^h	K0M^eHca^u0HH^ix BbmnaT, nTO y^eMnaeT UHTepecM pa6OTHUKOB
nepuogunHO	Henpepbi	perynapHocTb	b coneTaHuu c nacTunHoM uHgeKca^ueM
cTb	BHaa	K0M^eHca^u0HH^Ix	gucKpuMHHupyeT Bbic0K00nnanuBaeMbix
K0M^eHca^u		BbmnaT Ha ocHOBe	pa6OTHHKOB
OHHbix		e:eMecanHOM	
BbmnaT		guarHocTHKu guHaMUKu ^h	
	eguHoBp	KOMneHcupyeT pocT ^h	onacHa b nepuog ycunuBaro^eMca
	eMeHHaa	BceM KaTeropuaM pa6OTHHKOB	HH$na^HH, pacKpynuBaHue cnupanu «3apa6oTHaa nnaTa - ^Ha»
C TonKu 3peHua rocygapcTBeHHoro perynupoBaHua ^K0H0MUKU HanoroBaa cucreMa, b TOM nucne nogoxogHoe Hanoroo6no:eHue, urpaeT gBoMcraeHHyro ponb. C ogHoM cTopoHH, OHa gon:Ha o6ecnenuTb gocraTonHbie nocTynneHua b 6rog:eT, to ecTb BHnonHaTb ^ucKanbHyro ^yH^uro, c gpyroM cropoHbi - cnoco6cTBOBaTb pocTy u pa3BUTura ^K0H0MUKU b cooTBeTcTBuu co cTpaTerunecKHMu ycTaHOBKaMu, to ecTb BbinonHaTb b mup0K0M cMbicne perynupyro^yro ^yH^uro. B Pecny6nuKe Eenapycb TaK :e KaK u b cTpaHax c pa3BHToM pwHonHoM ^K0H0MUK0M (ra6nu^ 3) npegycMaTpuBaraTca HanoroBbie nbroTbi. Oco6oe BHUMaHue b nocnegHue rogbi ygenaeTca cruMynupoBaHuro uHBeci^uoHHoM aKTHBHocTu HaceneHua, b tom nucne b o6nacTu uHguBugyanbHoro :unu^Horo cTpouTenbcTBa, nTO, Hec0MHeHH0, BnuaeT Ha noBbimeHue KanecTBa :u3hu, a TaK:e noBumeHura ypoBHa nenoBenecKoro pa3BUTua, nocpegcTBOM nbroTupoBaHua nonyneHua 06pa30BaTenbHbix ycnyr.
B xoge peTpocneKTUBHoro aHanu3a Tapu^Hbix cucreM b cTpaHax c pa3BUTbiM pbiHKOM B^iaBneHa TeHgeH^ua k yHu$uKa^uu Tapu^Hbix ycnoBuM 3apnnaTbi pa60THUK0B b OTpacneBOM pa3pe3e. ^T0 no3Bonuno cgenaTb BbiBog o tom, nTO pacry^aa M0H0^0nu3a^ua
npou3BogcTBa o6ycnoBuna ucnonb30BaHue b ^Tux cTpaHax oTpacneBbix Tapu^Hbix cucreM, gna KoTopbix xapaKTepeH npo^cc cy«eHua pa3puBa cTaB0K Me«gy pa3pagaMu u KpaüHuMu ToHKaMu Tapu^Hbix ceT0K unu cxeM gon«HocTHux oKnagoB. OTMeTuM, hto ^aKTopbi ^opMupoBaHHa Tapu^Hoü cucreMbi b Pecny6nuKe Eenapycb cooTBeTcTByroT 3anagHoeBponeücKuM nogxogaM (Ta6nu^ 4).
Ta6nu^ 3 — O6ocH0BaHue ucnonb30BaHua HanoroBbix nbroT (rotatuü) b cTpaHax c pa3BuT0ü pblHQHHQü ^K0H0MUK0Ü_
CTaTbH Ha^oroBux ^broT	OöocHoBaHHe HcK^roneHHH cTaTefi H3 Ha^orooö^araeMoro goxoga	
Bo3Me^eHue genoBux pacxogoB	^BnaroTca pacxogaMu, Heo6xoguMMMu gna nonyHeHua Hanoroo6naraeMoro goxoga	
EnaroTBopuTenbHue, neHcuoHHue, crpaxoBbie b3hocm, pacxogu Ha 06pa30BaHue	Cnoco6cTByroT pacmupeHuro 06^ecTBeHH0 none3Hbix BugoB geaTenbHocTu, coBepmeHCTBoBaHuro HenoBeHecKoro ^0TeH^uana crpaHbi	
npo^HTHbie nnaTe^u no unoTeKe	CHu^aroT Harpy3Ky Ha roc6rog«eT, cruMynupyroT pa3BuTue HacTHoü «unu^Hoü co6cTBeHH0cru	
Megu^uHCKue pacxogu, HanoroBue BbmnaTbi gpyruM rocygapcTBaM, b3hocm Ha co^uanbHoe CTpaxoBaHue	^BnaroTca 06^ecTBeHH0 none3HMMu, Hego6poBonbHMMu, o6ecneHuBaroT noggep^aHue 3gopoBba u 6narononyHua Ha^uu, BnuaroT Ha yMeHbmeHue HanoroBoü nnaTe«ecn0C06H0CTu $u3uHecKux nu^	
noTepu ot aBapuü u Kpa«	Bo3Me^aroT b onpegeneHHoü Mepe MopanbHuü y^ep6, BnuaroT Ha yMeHbmeHue HanoroBoü nnaTe«ecn0C06H0CTu ^u3uHecKux nu^	
Ta6nu^ 4 — OaKTopbi ^opMupoBaHua Tapu^Hoü cucreMbi b HeK0T0pux CTpaHax c pa3BuT0ü pMH0HH0ü ^K0H0MUK0Ü		
Tun Tapii(|)Hoii cncreMbi	^aKTopw, ^opMHpyro^ne cncreMy	
EenopyccKuü	•	Cno«HocTb pa6oTu; •	KBanu^uKa^uoHHMe Tpe6oBaHua: -	ypoBeHb 06pa30BaHua; -	cTa« pa6oTM no c^e^uanbH0CTu.	
3anagHoeBponeücKuü	KBanu^uKa^uoHHMe rpynnu b 3aBucuM0CTu ot: •	BpeMeHu o6yHeHua; •	npou3BogcTBeHHoro onuTa	
^noHCKuü	ÄHKeTHue gaHHbie (B03pacT, non, 06pa30BaHue, CTa«, $opMbi no HaüMy: nocroaHHbie, BpeMeHHue, nogeHHbie, «K0MaHgup0B0HHbie»)	
ÄMepuKaHCKuü	•	Cno«HocTb pa6oTu; •	ypoBeHb 06pa30BaHua; •	ycnoBua Tpyga	
B ycnoBuax ^K0H0MUHecK0Ü TpaHC$opMa^uu npuMeHeHue Tapu^Hoü cucreMbi no3BonuT o6ecneHuTb B0cnp0u3B0gcTB0 pa6oHeü cunu KoHKpeTHoro ypoBHa KBanu^uKa^uu; ycTaH0BuTb 060CH0BaHHbie pa3nuHua b 3apa6oTHoü nnaTe b 3aBucuM0cru ot ypoBHa KBanu^uKa^uu pa60THuK0B, cno^Hocru u 0TBeTCTBeHH0CTu BbinonHaeMbix umu pa6oT ($yH^uü); co3gaTb ycnoBua gna BugeneHua no onnaTe Tpyga pa60THuK0B, Tpyg KoTopbix b Hau6onbmeü CTeneHu onpegenaeT guHaMuKy pa3BuTua $upM, b tom Hucne b HayHHo-TexHonoruHecKoM acneKTe; c^opMupoBaTb bo Bcex oTpacnax u c$epax ^K0H0MUKU o6teKTuBHyro 0CH0By gna peanu3a^uu ^puH^u^a paBHoü onnaTbi 3a paBHbiü Tpyg
He3aBucuM0 0T $0pM coÖcTBeHHocru u MeT0g0B x03aMcTB0BaHua.
TaKuM 0Öpa30M, c.o^uBmaaca b Pecny6.uKe Ee.apycb cucreMa pery.upoBaHua 3apaöoTHoM n.aTbi b no.HoM Mepe ageKBaTHa MexaHu3My pery.upoBaHua on.aTbi Tpyga b cTpaHax c pa3BuToM phhohhoM ^K0H0MUK0M, b tom nuc.e b BbicoKopa3BuTbix eBponeMcKux cTpaHax. Hau6o.ee aKTya.bHbiM g.a nocTcoBeTcKoro npocTpaHcTBa, b HacTHocru, g.a cTpaH BocToHHoro napTHepcTBa, aB.aeTca Bonpoc o noBwmeHuu ypoBHa on.aTbi Tpyga. C.egyeT oTMeTuTb, hto noc.egHue pe3K0 oTcTaroT no pa3MepaM MuHuMa.bHoM 3apa6oTHoM n.aTbi ot ^ocTco^ua.ucTUHecKux cTpaH EBponeMcKoro coro3a (ra6.u^ 5).
Ta6.u^ 5 — MuHuMa.bHaa MecaHHaa 3apa6oTHaa n.aTa b 2010 rogy no HeKoTopbiM nocTcoUHa.HcTHHecKHM cTpaHaM [ 1]_
HHTe^pa^H0HH0e oötegHHeHHe	CTpaHa	CyMMa b eBpo*
CTpaHM EBponeMcKoro coro3a	no.bma	318,85
	Hexua	309,96
	C.oBaKua	307,70
	BeHrpua	277,77
	^CT0Hua	277,72
	HaTBua	253,75
	HuTBa	233,02
CTpaHbi BocToHHoro napTHepcTBa	Poccua**	102,39
	YKpauHa	75,31
	A3ep6aMg^aH	65,25
	Ee.apycb	63,70 (95,86 Ha 01.11.2010 r.)
	Mo.goBa	62,23
	ApMeHua	55,52
	rpy3ua	8,18
* B cooTBeTcTBuu c o^u^ua.bHMMu KypcaMu Ha^uoHa.bH^Ix Ba.roT no oTHomeHuro k eBpo
Ha 19.01.2010 r.
** npur.amaeTca g.a oöcy^geHua HeKoTopbix MecrHbix uHu^uaTUB, b HacTHocru oTHoca^uxca k Ka.uHuHrpagcKoM o6.acru.
KaK 0TMena.0cb Bbime, nogoÖHaa npo6.eMa xapaKTepHa u g.a «crapeMmux» cTpaH EBponeMcKoro coro3a, o neM cBugeTe.bcrByeT peTpocneKTuBHbiM aHa.u3. TaK, b «öoraTbix» ceBepHbix cTpaHax MecaHHaa MuHuMa.bHaa 3apa6oTHaa n.aTa b koh^ 1980-x rogoB K0.e6a.acb b npege.ax ot 440 go 550 ^yrnm crep.uHroB, a b «öegHbix» ro^Hbix - ot 113— 118 go 230. MuHuMa.bHbiM pa3Mep 3apa6oTHoM n.aTbi b eBponeMcKux cTpaHax no gaHHbiM 3a 1997 r. TaK^e KaK u b koh^ 1980-x rogoB BecbMa gu$$epeH^upoBaH. B HacTHocru, b HcnaHuu oh cocraB.a. 2,94 go.. b nac, b Be.uKo6puTaHuu - 5,44 go.., bo OpaH^uu - 5,56 go.., b Hugep.aHgax - 6 go.., b Ee.bruu - 6,4 go.. [2, c. 60]. PacmupeHue EBponeMcKoro coro3a e^e b 6o.bmeM Mepe yBe.unu.o guana30H pa3.unuM. no gaHHbiM Ha 1 aHBapa 2005 r. - ot 121 eBpo b Meca^ (MuHuMa.bHoe 3HaneHue b ^0CTC0^ua.ucTUHecKux cTpaHax) go 1467 eBpo (MaKcuMa.bHoe 3HaneHue b Hau6o.ee o6ecneneHHbix eBponeMcKux cTpaHax) [3, c. 23].CoBpeMeHHoe cocroaHue u pa3.unua b MuHuMa.bHoM on.aTe Tpyga Har.agH0 npegcraB.eHbi b Ta6.u^ 6 (ot MaKcuMa.bHoro 3HaneHua k MuHuMa.bH0My).
B ^0^Ta^H0M npogBu^eHuu k yHu$uKa^uu pery.upyro^ux B03geMcTBuM Ha c$epy on.aTM Tpyga ^.ec006pa3H0 ucn0.b30BaTb bo3mo^hoctu K0..eKTuBH0-goroBopHoro MexaHu3Ma u on^u 3aK.roneHua Me^gyHapogHMx Tapu^Hbix cor.ameHuM. ^T0 co3gacr B03M0^H0cTb g.a ycTaH0B.eHua cnpaBeg.uBoM 3apa6oTHoM n.aTbi, ee 060cH0BaHH0M gu$$epeH^ua^uu, uHTepHa^uoHa.u3a^uu ctoumoctu pa6oneM cu.bi no KpuTepuro Ko.unecTBa u KanecrBa Tpyga, n03B0.uT guHaMuHHo npogBuraTbca k noBbmeHuro ypoBHa «u3Hu, yHu^u^upoBaTb HopMM TpygoBoro
Ta6nu^ 6 — MuHuManbHaa MecaHHaa 3apa6oTHaa nnaTa b 2010 r. b HeK0T0pbix cTpaHax EßponeMcKoro coro3a no gaHHHM EBpocTaTa [4]_
CTpaHa	CyMMa b eBpo*	CTpaHa	CyMMa b eBpo*
HroKceM6ypr	1682,76	nopTyranua	554,17
HpnaHgua	1461,85	nonbma	320,87
HugepnaHgH	1407,60	CnoßaKua	307,70
Eenbrua	1387,50	Hexua	302,19
OpaH^ua	1343,77	^CT0Hua	278,02
BenuKo6puTaHua	1076,46	BeHrpua	271,80
^pe^ua	862,82	HaTBua	253,77
HcnaHua	738,85	HuTBa	231,70
ManbTa	659,92	PyMHHua	141,63
CnoßeHua	597,43	Eonrapua	122,71
* no gaHHHM Ha 01.01.2010 r.
npaßa, c^opMupoßaTb npegnocbinKu gna 06pa30ßaHua cy6beKT0ß Me^gyHapogHoro KonneKTuBH0-goroßopHoro npo^cca [5].
HuTepaTypa
1	MuHuManbHaa 3apnnaTa b Eenapycu ot 1,7 go 5 pa3 MeHbme, HeM y 6nu«aMmHx cocegeM / Moa 3apnnaTa PneKTpoHHbiM pecypc]. - Pe^uM gocTyna: http://mojazarplata.by/main. - ^aTa gocTyna: 08.11.2010.
2	OegneHKo, A. MuHuManbHaa 3apnnaTa KaK co^uanbHaa rapaHTua u ^neMeHT cucTeMH onnaTH Tpyga / A. OegneHKo // HenoßeK u Tpyg. - 2001. - M 9. - C. 59-61.
3	MuHuManbHaa 3apnnaTa BHpocna bo ßceM Eßpone // Ha^ ^K0H. ra3. - 2005. -M9. - C. 23.
4	Minimum wages / Eurostat [Electronic resource]. -Mode of access: http://europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm. - Date of access: 04.11.2010.
5	He6egeßa, C.H. Merogonorua u MexaHu3M perynupoBaHua onnaTH Tpyga: MoHorp./ C.H. He6egeßa; nog peg. npo$. B.H. ffluMoßa. - Muhck: EOy, 2005. - 343 c.
O^er JyKma
ucnonHuTenbHbiM gupeKTop 3aKapnaTcKoro peruoHanbHoro OTgeneHua Acco^ua^uu
ropogoB YKpauHbi
gupeKTop Me^gyHapogHoro uHcTuTyTa nenoBeKa u rno6anucTuKu «Hooc^epa» (r.
y^ropog, YKpauHa E-mail: zakarpatya@ukr.net)
TPAHCEBPOnEHCKAH nPHrPAHHHHAH CETb MyHH^H^A^HTETOB H HEnPABHTE^bCTBEHHblX OP^AHH3A^HH «nAPTHEPCTBO BOCTOK - 3AnA^»
KaK u3BecTHO, nog TpaHcrpaHuHHbiM coTpygHunecTBOM (TrC) npuHaTO noHuMaTb coBMecTHbie geMcTBua, cyöbeKTOB TrC, HanpaBneHHbie Ha ycraHOBneHue, pa3BuTue u yrnyöneHue ^K0H0MUHecKux, KynbrypHbix u gpyrux ryMaHuTapHbix 0TH0meHuM Me«gy TeppuTopuanbHbiMu oö^uHaMu, opraHaMu MecTHbix u peruoHanbHbix BnacreM, HenpaBuTenbCTBeHHbiMu op^aHU3a^uaMu (HnO) gByx cTpaH b npegenax ux K0M^eTeH^uu, onpegeneHHoM Ha^uoHanbHMMu 3aK0H0gaTenbCTB0M Ka«goM ux cTpaH u Me^gyHapogHbiMu npaBOBbiMu aKTaMu.
Hbrne geMcrayro^aa cucTeMa TrC b EBpone npomna gnuHHbiM nyTb craHOBneHua u pa3BuTua b nocneBoeHHOM Mupe, nocTeneHHO npuoöpeTaa nepTbi coBpeMeHHoM Mogenu coTpygHunecTBa oö^uh, ropogoB u TeppuTopuM. npu ^T0M cno^unacb u BnonHe noruHHaa pa3Hu^ Me«gy noHaTuaMu TrC u npurpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa (111C). nocnegHee npegnonaraeT coTpygHunecTBO HenocpegcTBeHHO Ha TeppuTopuax, npuneraro^ux u rocygapcTBeHHoM rpaHu^ Me«gy gByMa cTpaHaMu.
3HaneHue TrC u nrC 0rp0MH0 b pa3BuTuu coBpeMeHHoM ^uBunu3a^uu, npoTeKaro^eM b ycnoBuax ycKopeHua rao6anu3a^uoHH^Ix npo^ccoB. ^ocraTOHHO yKa3aTb Ha to, hto uMeHHO nocpegcTBOM MexaHu3MOB TrC u nrC yganocb nocreneHHO cHaTb Hanpa^eHua u guc6anaHC b pa3BuTuu npurpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM u o6^uh, co3gaB TeM caMbM npegnocbinKu u gna 06pa30BaHua EBponeMcKoro Coro3a (EC), u gna KanecTBeHHoro u3MeHeHua b nocnegHue rogbi caMux ^paHu^ BHyTpu EC.
Ho hto aBnaer co6oM HOBaa rpaHu^ EC no reorpa^unecKOMy nepuMeTpy co cTpaHaMu, He aBnaro^uMuca ero nneHaMu? B nacTHOcru, c mecrepKoM cTpaH BocTOHHoro napTHepcTBa Bn - BenopyccueM, YKpauHoM, MongoBoM, Tpy3ueM, ApMeHueM u A3ep6aMg«aHOM?
Ha ^T0T cneT b cpege ^KC^epT0B cTpaH Bn MHeHua pacnpegenunucb Me«gy gByMa KpaMHuMu TOHKaMu 3peHua:
1.	TpaHu^ CTpaH EC c BenopyccueM, YKpauHoM u MongoBoM - ^T0 hobmM «ene3HbiM 3aHaBec b EBpone.
2.	Ha rpaHu^x co CTpaHaMu EC aKTuBHO pa3BuBaeTca nrC u TrC bo BceM MHoroo6pa3uu $opM, a EC u crpaHbi EC ^uHaHCOBO noggep^uBaroT TaKoe coTpygHunecTBO.
KaK Bcerga, ucTuHa rge-TO nocpeguHe Me«gy ^TUMU KpaMHe neccuMucrunecKoM u BnonHe onTuMucTunecKoM TOHKaMu 3peHua. npuneM cuTya^ua g0B0nbH0 pa3Haa u gna pa3nuHHbix
gBycTopoHHux ^paHu^ - Ee.opyccuu c no.bmeM, YKpauHbi c no.bmeM, C.OBaKueM, BeHrpueM u PyMHHueM, Mo.goBbi c PyMHHueM. A HanuHaa c cepeguHH HbiHemHero gecaTu.eTua EC y^e npegBuge. HoByro cuTya^uro Ha cboux boctohhhx rpaHu^x b cBa3u co cboum pacmupeHueM Ha Boctok. B pe3y.braTe - noaBu.ucb HOBbie go.rocpoHHbie nporpaMMH - Bn u EBponeMcKuM HHcTpyMeHT ^o6pococegcraa u napraepcrBa (ENPI), pea^u3a^uro KOTopwx Hbrne Ha6.rogaeM.
He nogBepraa hu Ma.eMmeMy coMHeHuro Ba^Hocrb u no.b3y nporpaMM Bn u ENPI g.a pa3BuTua TrC u nrC (gapeHoMy KoHro b 3y6w He 3araagbiBaroT), Ba^Ho Bce no.ynuTb HeTKue oTBerw Ha Bonpocw:
-	B KaKoM cTeneHu reono.uTuKa u Bonpocw 6e3onacHocTu EC onpege.aroT BHemHroro no.uTuKy u B3auMooTHomeHua c mecrepKoM cTpaH Bn, BK.ronaa uHcrpyMeHTbi nporpaMM Bn u ENPI?
-	HacKO.bKO «K.accuHecKue» cy6beKTbi TrC u nrC - MecTHbie opraHbi B.acru, ux o6beguHeHua u HnO b mecrepKe cTpaH Bn u ux ^OTeH^ua.bHHe napTHepw no Ty cropoHy rpaHu^i onpege.aroT npuopureTbi cBoero coTpygHunecraa, noggep^uBaeMoro EC? Hhmmu c.oBaMu, HacKo.bKo ge^HTpa.u3OBaHO ^TO coTpygHunecTBO?
OTBeT Ha o6a Bonpoca cKopee HeyTemuTe.bHbiM. Eo.ee Toro, BO3HuKaeT MHoro hobhx BonpocoB.
Bo-nepBHx, reono.uTuKa u yneT B3auMOOTHomeHuM ee ochobhhx «urpoKOB» b EBpone -Poccuu u EC aB.aroTca goMuHupyro^uM ^aKTopoM nocTpoeHua no.uTuKu BocroHHoro napTHepcTBa EC, xoTa Poccua u He BxoguTb b mecrepKy cTpaH Bn. 3aTO ^Ta ^e mecrepKa cTpaH Bn BxoguT b op6uTy uHTepecoB HbiHemHeM rocygapcTBeHHoM B.acru b Poccuu KaK nocTcoBeTcKoe npocTpaHcTBO no nepuMeTpy crpaHbi, HecMOTpa Ha noHTu gBag^Tu.eTHuM nepuog He3aBucuMocTu YKpauHH, Ee.opyccuu, Mo.goBH, rpy3uu, ApMeHuu u A3ep6aMg^aHa. TaKuM o6pa3OM, BbicrpauBaHue OTHomeHuM c PoccueM c yneTOM npuopuTeTOB 6e3onacHocTu (b tom Huc.e u 6e3onacHocTu nocTaBOK ^Hep^OHOCUTe.eM) g.a EC He MO^eT He B.uaTb Ha ee no.uTuKy b OTHomeHuu mecrepKu cTpaH Bn. BpeMeHaMu cK.agHBaeTca ga^e BnenaT.eHue, hto coTpygHunecrao EC u Poccuu uMeeT 6o.bmyro guHaMuKy u Hano.HeHue, He^e.u c npurpaHuHHbiMu k EC YKpauHoM, Ee.opyccueM u Mo.goBoM.
Ha ^TH reonoTunecKue creHbi MO^eT e^e go.ro HaTHKaTbca BeKTop crpeM.eHua k eBpoHHTe^pa^HH b geMOKpaTunecKux Hacrax o6^ecra cTpaH mecTepKu Bn. K TOMy HeT u BHyTpeHHeM KOHCO.uga^uu o6^ecra b cTpaHax Bn OTHocuTe.bHO nepcneKTuB BcTyn.eHua b EC, a npoTuBHuKu eBpouHTe^pa^uu b Kanecrae a.brepHaTuBbi yKa3biBaroT Ha pa3.uHHwe ^opMH o6beguHeHua c PoccueM..
Bo-BTopwx, b KaKux yc.OBuax Ha rpaHu^ c EC ocy^ecTB.a.ocb u npoucTeKaeT u HbiHe TrC u nrC Me^gy «K.accunecKuMu» cy6beKTaM TrC, k KOTopwM mh othocum MecTHbie opraHH B.acru, ux acco^ua^uu u HnO? Co cropoHbi cTpaH EC (no.bma, C.OBaKua, BeHrpua, PyMHHua) uMeeM nocrpe^opMeHHbie u.u b cTaguu aKTuBHoro pe^opMupoBaHua Ha^uoHa.bHHe cucreMbi MecTHoM u peruoHa.bHoM B.acru c cu.bHHM MecTHHM caMoynpaB.eHueM, guHaMuHHO pa3BuBaeMHM rpa^gaHcKuM o6^ecTBOM. no gpyryro cTopoHy rpaHu^i b cTpaHax Bn cucreMHbie pe^opMbi aBHO 3agep^a.ucb .eT Ha gecaTb u.u, hto e^e xy^e, npoucxogaT nceBgope^opMbi u cgep^uBaeTca pa3BuTua op^aHU3a^uM rpa^gaHcKoro o6^ecraa.
B-TpeTbux, pacmupeHue ffleHreHCKOH 30hm u Bu30B0r0 pesuMa go ^paHu^ EC co CTpaHaMu Bn Ha caMOM ge.e CTa.o paBHOcu.bHO onycKaHuro HOBoro se.e3Horo 3aHaBeca Mesgy 3anagoM u Boctokom EBponw, ho yse co cropoHbi EC.
B-HeTBepTwx, pa3BuTue TrC u nrC Mesgy MecTHbiMu u peruoHa.bHbiMu B.acraMu g.a CTpaH EC u CTpaH Bn, xoTa ^0TeH^ua.bH0 u 6w.o He3aBucuMbiM b Bbi6ope npuopuTeTOB u COBMeCTHHx npOeKTOB (b COOTBeTCTBuu C EBpOneHCKOH PaMOHHOH K0HBeH^UeH TrC MecTHbix B.acTeH u o6^uh), ho b geHCTBuTe.bHOCTu onpege.a.ocb u no pecypcaM, u no npuopuTeTaM no.uTuKoH u nporpaMMaMu EC, K0T0pwe CMeHa.u gpyr gpyra. B yc.OBuax, Korga Ha^uoHa.bHbIx nporpaMM noggepsKu TrC b CTpaHax Bn He cy^ecTB0Ba.0 u He cy^ecTByeT B006^e u goHbiHe, u TaKaa cuTya^ua 6w.a no.osuTe.bHoH bo Bcex oTHomeHuax. KaK MuHuMyM, $opMupoBa.ucb napTHepcKue CBa3u, noaBu.ucb HOBbie HnO, cy^ecTBeHHo BO3pacra.u ^KC^epTHbIH ypoBeHb u cnoco6HoCTb k pa3pa6oTKe u Bwno.HeHuro Bce 6o.ee c.oshmx npOeKTOB b 6o.bmuHCTBe u3 mecTepKu CTpaH Bn. Ha cerogHa c yBepeHHOCTbro mosho roBopuTb o tom, hto 3a noc.egHue 5-7 .eT b CTpaHax Bn npou3om.u KaHecTBeHHwe u3MeHeHua u KO.uHecTBa, u ypoBHa ^KC^epTH0^0 ^0TeH^ua.a b npurpaHuHHbix co CTpaHaMu EC peruoHax b c^epe npo6.eMaTuKu MecTHoro u peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua, BK.roHaa uHCTpyMeHTbi u bo3moshoctu TrC u nrC.
C yHeTOM ^T0H hoboh cuTya^uu ^.eo6pa3HO npoaHa.u3upoBaTb uMero^ueca o6^ue M0TUBa^uu u npegnocbi.Ku g.a o6teguHeHua ycu.uH mecTepKu CTpaH Bn u npurpaHuHHbix o6.acreM EC c ^.bro Bbipa6oTKu o6^ux ^03u^uH u BbipaseHua o6^ux uHTepecoB bo B3auM00TH0meHuax c EC b c^epe TrC u nrC b npurpaHuHHbix peruoHax no o6e cTopoHw rpaHu^i:
1.	Mm MOseM u go.sHbi BugeTb u yHuTbiBaTb ucruHHbie uHTepecw Hamux napTHepoB no Ty CTopoHy rpaHu^i b EC u CTpouTb c humu 0TH0meHua Ha go.roBpeMeHHoM u B3auM0Bwr0gH0H OcHOBe. ^T0 nyTb He TO.bKO ot K0HKypeH^uu k CTpaTeruHecKOMy napTHepcTBy Ha ypoBHe nporpaMM EC, ho u nyTb ucn0.b30BaHua gpyrux pecypcHbix uctohhukob, BK.roHaa Mo6u.u3a^uro BHyTpeHHux pecypcoB o6^uh u MecTHbie 6rogseTw.
2.	Mm MOseM u go.sHbi BMecTe OTCTauBaTb npaBO Ha Bbi6op b npege.ax 6o.ee mupoKoro cneKTpa npuopuTeTOB u B03M0SH0CTeH b gByx - u TpexcTopoHHeM TrC u nrC, HeM ^T0 guKTyeTca HHHemHHMu TpeMa paMOHHbiMu npuopuTeTaMu nporpaMM Bn u ENPI (noggepsKa pa3BuTua Ma.oro u cpegHero 6u3Heca; Typu3M u ^K0.0^ua; c0BepmeHCTB0BaHue He.OBeHecKux KOHTaKTOB).
3.	Ha HHHemHeM ^Ta^e o6^ecTBeHHbix TpHac$opMa^uH b CTpaHax Bn ogHuM u3 BasHeümux npuopuTeTOB TrC u nrC MOseT u go.sHO CTaTb HanpaB.eHue noggep^KH cucTeMHux pe$opM h ge^HTpa.nnamiii B.acTH 3a CHeT nepegaHu u TBopHecKoro npuMeHeHua onbrra n0CTT0Ta.uTapHbix He3aBucuMbix rocygapcTB -no.bmu, C.OBaKuu, BeHrpuu u PyMbiHuu, Hau6o.ee 6.u3Kux HaM CTpaHaM no CTapTOBHM yc.OBuaM pa3BuTua geMOKpaTuHecKux o6^ecTB. Be3 pe^opM b CTpaHax Bn gocTuseHua TrC u nrC - ^T0 TOHeHHbie ^$$eKTbI, 0Ka3WBaro^ue He3HaHuTe.bHoe B.uaHue Ha o6^ecraeHHoe u, TeM 6o.ee, Ha ^K0H0MUHecK0e pa3BuTue.
KaKue HanpaB.eHua cucreMHbix pe^opM b yKa3aHHbix hobmx CTpaHax EC - Hamux cocegax BasHbi g.a nepeHaTua onbrra b nepByro OHepegb? Ha Ham B3r.ag, ^T0 pe^opMbi: b o6.acTu
TeppuTopuanbHoM ny6nunHoM BnacTu, OTBenaro^eM EBponeMcKoM XapTuu MecTHoro caMoynpaBneHua; pe^uoHanu3a^ua, BKnronaa cy^ecraeHHyro ge^eHTpanu3a^uro pa3BUTua peru0H0B; co3gaHue npegnocbinoK u noggepsKa pa3BUTua nonHO^HHoro rpasgaHcKoro o6^ecraa.
OgHUM H3 Hau6onee ^$$eKTUBHbIx nogxogoB pemeHua HaKonuBmuxca npo6neM TrC u nrC b cTpaHax Bgonb ^paHu^ EC u crpaH Bn MOseT cTaTb HHCTHTynHOHHbiH. ^0^T0My b 2009 rogy HaMu 6binu BbigBUHyTbi ugea u npoeKT co3gaHua MesgyHapogHoM TpaHceBponMecKoM Acco^ua^uu npurpaHunHbix MecTHbix, peruoHanbHbix BnacTeM u HenpaBHTenbcTBeHHbix op^aHU3a^uM «napTHepcTBO Boctok - 3anag». Hgea co3gaHua HOBOM Acco^ua^uu Ha ypoBHe MeMopaHgyMa b 2009-2010 rogax yse nonynuna noggepsKy co cropoHbi 6onee 50 M^poB ropogoB b npurpaHunHbix peruoHax nonbmu, YKpauHbi, Eenopyccuu, CnoBaKuu, BeHrpuu u PyMbiHuu. Ha onepegu rpaHu^ MongaBuu u PyMbiHuu. B HOBOM TpaHcrpaHunHOM ceTeBOM o6beguHeHuu Bgonb ^paHu^ EC npegnonaraeTca u B03M0SH0crb BxosgeHua b Acco^ua^uro eBpoperuoHOB b KanecTBe acco^uupoBaHHHx nneHOB, nTO npugaeT eM, KpoMe TpaHceBponeMcKoro, u MaKpoperuoHanbHbiM xapaKTep.
OgHoM U3 rnaBHbix ^neM co3gaHua MesgyHapogHoM Acco^ua^uu «napTHepcTBO Boctok -3anag» b npurpaHunHbix peruoHax no o6e cropoHbi u Bgonb BceM rpaHu^i EC ot EanTuMcKoro go HepHoro Mopa aBnaeTca o6beguHeHue ycunuM o6^uh ^Tux c^e^H$HnecKHx u npo6neMHbix peru0H0B KaK gna npeogoneHua OTcTaBaHuM u guc6anaHca, TaK u gna uHTerpoBaHHoro pa3BUTua. C ^$$eKTUBHbIM u nonHO^HHbiM ucnonb3OBaHueM MexaHH3MOB U UHcTpyMeHTOB TrC U nrC.
HcTopua cHaTua 6apbepoB u HanpaseHuM Ha rpaHu^x, xapaKTepu3yro^aa Becb nocneBoeHHbiM nepuog pa3BUTua EBponbi, MOseT noBTopuTbca Ha hobom BUTKe ^uBunu3a^u0HH0^0 pa3BUTua, ho yse b BocTonHoM u roro-BocronHoM EBpone. H cHOBa Hagesga numb Ha «KnaccunecKue» cy6beKTbi TrC u nrC - MecTHbie opraHbi BnacTu u HnO, npegcraBnaro^ue HHTepecbi MecTHbix o6^uh. ^Tu uHTepecbi yguBUTenbHO noxosuM 06pa30M He BugHbi U3 BapmaBbi, MuHcKa, KueBa, EpaTucnaBbi, EyganemTa u KumuHeBa. TeM 6onee ohh He BugHbi u He cnbimHbi b Eproccene. MesgyHapogHaa TpaHceBponeMcKaa Acco^ua^ua «napTHepcTBO Boctok - 3anag» - ^T0 maHc u3MeHUTb nonoseHue k nynmeMy: ocHOBaTenbHO u Hagonro.
Igor STUDENNIKOV
Centre for Regional Studies Odessa, Ukraine
REGIONAL POLICY IN UKRAINE AND CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION WITH THE EU COUNTRIES: LEGAL FRAMEWORK
AND PRACTICE
Abstract
The key thesis of this publication is based on the ideology of the Third World Forum on Regional Economic Development (Madeira, November 2009): regional policy is no longer aims to assist the poor. This is a means of keeping states or even the European Union coherent and safe in the long term.
In this context, the role of cross-border co-operation in regional/spatial development is stipulated by its ability to mobilise and efficiently use the existing potential of border areas and to join resources of border regions of neighbouring countries to find solution to common problems and to foster co-operation within transboundary regions.
Cross-border co-operation between the border regions (oblasts) of Ukraine and the neigbouring countries may be theoretically divided into two directions:
•	CBC on the EU-Ukraine border,
•	and CBC in the so called "new border area" along the borderline emerged between Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Moldova after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The key feature of the cross-border cooperation involving the border regions of Ukraine is the high level of its institutionalisation. It is implemented in the framework of seven euroregions: Bug, Upper Prut, Lower Danube, Dnieper, Carpathian, Slobozhanschina and Yaroslavna.
EU and Ukraine: some facts related to cross-border cooperation:
The EU is the key donor giving financial and technical aid to the South-West border regions of Ukraine (Odesska, Chernivetska, Ivano-Frankivska, Lvivska, Zakarpatska, Volynska). In 1998-2002 the European Commission through the TACIS CBC Programme granted to Ukraine 22.5 million euros. [Source: European Neighbourhood Policy. Country Report. Ukraine. Commission Staff Working Paper. - Brussels, 12.5.2004. SEC (2004) 566. COM (2004) 373 final.]
The European Neigbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), a tool of the implementation of the EU Neigbourhood Poliocy, is implemented in two stages:
•	2004-2006: Neighbourhood Programmes;
•	2007-2013: ENPI.
The ENPI's financial envelope for Ukraine under the National Indicative Programme 2007-2010 is 494 million euros.
The CBC Programmes 2007-2013, in which Ukraine is involved, has been approved in 2008 including:
•	Hungary-Slovakia-Romania-Ukraine: € 68.640 million;
•	Romania-Ukraine-Moldova: € 126.718 million;
•	Poland-Belarus-Ukraine: € 186.201 million;
•	The Black Sea CBC Sea basin programme: € 17.306 million.
[Source: Implementation of the European Nighbourhood Policy in 2008. Progress Report: Ukraine. Commission Staff Working Document. - Brussels, 23/04/2009. Sec (2009) 515/2.]
The legal framework for the involvement of Ukraine's border regions in cross-border cooperation is well developed and quite sufficient. It includes:
The Council of Europe acts: European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (Ratified by the Decree of Verkhovna Rada of 14 July 1993) and European Charter of Local Self-Government (Ratified by the Act of Ukraine of 15 July 1997).
National legislation: Act of Ukraine on Local Self-Government (adopted: 21 May 1997); Act of Ukraine on Local State Administrations (adopted: 9 April 1999); Act of Ukraine "On Transfrontier Co-operation" (adopted; 24 June 2004). The latter defines: the objectives and principles of the national policies in the field of transfrontier co-operation; powers of Ukrainian entities involved in transfrontier co-operation; the principles and methods of the government support to transfrontier co-operation including the national funding. Decree by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine "On the Measures to Implement the Concept of the State Regional Policy" (adopted: 13 Sept. 2001); Decree by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine "On Some Issues of the Development of Cross-border Co-operation and the Euroregions" (adopted: 29 April 2002).
Bilateral agreements on co-operation and good neighbourhood between Ukraine and the neighbouring countries and special bilateral agreements on cooperation between Ukraine and the neighbouring countries in boundary regime and sectoral cooperation (e.g. trade, cooperation in the management and protection of transboundary waters etc.).
Documents outlining Ukraine's move towards accession to the EU: EU-Ukraine Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (signed in 1994, entered into force in 1998); Strategy of Ukraine's integration into the EU (approved by the President's Decree of 11 June 1998); National Programme of Ukraine's integration into the EU (Sept. 2002); yearly adopted EU-Ukraine Action Plans.
Challenges to cross-border cooperation, Ukraine - Neighbouring Countries:
External:
•	Schengen visa regime;
• Visa regime between Romania and Ukraine. Internal:
The lack of Ukraine's central Government understanding of the role of cross-border cooperation as a tool of regional development and the improvement of people's quality of life in border areas.
The lack of the Ukrainian Government's strategic vision of the objectives and perspectives of cross-border cooperation development. The same to the local government.
The national legislation of Ukraine is not in compliance with the EU legislation and practice.
Too ambitious objectives and steep expectation of the euroregions. To big areas of the euroregions that sometimes makes cross-border cooperation within them not manageable.
The lack of governmental (both central and local) funding of cross-border projects. The Decree by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine N° 339 of 11 May 2005 "On approval of the Regulations for the Evaluation and Selection of Projects (Programmes) of Cross-border Cooperation that can be funded from the National Programme of Cross-border Co-operation Development" doesn't work.
Weakness of the institutional base of regional and local development in Ukraine.
The poor public authorities' human capacity for the management of and involvement in cross-border projects.
Poor intersectoral co-operation. Poor involvement of NGOs and think-tanks in cross-border cooperation.
Conclusion:
The aim of the national policy in the field of cross-border cooperation, as it is stated in the Act on Transfrontier Co-operation - "the creation of favorable conditions for the efficient and mutually beneficial involvement of the Ukrainian entities in cross-border co-operation, the fostering of socio-economic development of the regions of Ukraine and the improvement of people's quality of life" - can be achieved only under the circumstances of comprehensive and efficient regional policy. This policy should ensure that legal, institutional and financial tools exist. Together with a public administration reform this has to facilitate the role of local self-government and the decentralisation of public administration.
Hropb CTy^EHHHKOB
^HTp peruoHanbH^ix uccnegoBaHuM, r. Ogecca, YKpauHa
PErHOHA^bHAH nO^HTHKA B yKPAHHE H TPAHCTPAHHHHOE COTPy^HHHECTBO CO CTPAHAMH-H^EHAMH ^C: nPABOBblE
PAMKH H nPAKTHKA
CoBpeMeHHaa K0H^e^^ua nonuTuKu peruoHanbHoro pa3BuTua, K0T0paa aBnaeTca goMuHupyro^eM b CTpaHax EC, ocHOBbiBaeTca Ha noHuMaHuu Toro, hto OHa ^Ta nonuTuKa) no 6onbmeM nacru gon«Ha opueHTupoBaTbca He CT0nbK0 Ha noggep«Ky genpeccuBHbix peru0H0B 3a cneT peru0H0B-g0H0p0B, CK0nbK0 Ha C03gaHue ycnoBuM gna Mo6unu3a^uu MecTHoro ^0TeH^uana u pecypcoB, ycuneHue K0HKypeHT0cn0C06H0CTu peru0H0B. ^T0T Te3uc npuo6peTaeT oco6yro aKTyanbHOCTb, Korga penb 3axoguT o norpaHuHHbix peruoHax, K0T0pbie aBnaroTca OTganeHHbiMu ot 6onbmux agMuHucrpaTuBHbix, ^uHaHCOBbix, genoBbix, HayHHbix, KynbrypHbix ^mpoB cboux CTpaH, Begb noHaTue "nepu^epuMHbiM" u "oTcranbiM" bo MHorux cnynaax cranu BOcnpuHuMaTbca noHTu KaK cuhohumm.
BnponeM, "...HOBaa peruoHanbHaa napagurMa 3aKnronaeTca b tom, hto b ycnoBuax ceTu npocTpaHCTBeHHoro pa3BuTua "nepu^epuMHbiM"., "^poBUH^uanbHMM" He 06a3aTenbH0 O3HanaeT hto-to cna6oe, TaK «e, KaK u '^empanbHoe nono«eHue" He Bcerga Heu36e«HO CBa3aHO c ^K0H0MUHecKUM npo^eTaHueM" [1]. HTaK, cerogHa K0H^e^^ua pa3BuTua norpaHuHHbix peru0H0B EBponbi, K0T0paa paccMaTpuBaeTca CKBO3b npu3My TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa, 3aKnronaeTca b tom, hto6m OTpu^TenbHbie nepTbi nepu^epuMHOCTu npeBpaTuTb b npeuMy^ecTBa.
B ^T0M KOHTeKCTe MecTO TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa b peru0HanbH0M/TeppuT0puanbH0M pa3BuTuu onpegenaeTca ero cn0C06H0CTbro k Mo6unu3a^uu u ^$$eKTUBH0My ucnonb3OBaHuro cy^ecTByro^ero ^0TeH^uana norpaHuHHbix peru0H0B u TeppuTopuM, a TaK«e k onruManbHOMy o6beguHeHuro BO3MO«HOCTeM u pecypcoB norpaHuHHbix peru0H0B u TeppuTopuM gByx unu 6onee crpaH, K0T0pbie rpaHunaT, c ^nbro pemeHua o6^ux npo6neM u pemeHua 3agan npocTpaHCTBeHHoro pa3BuTua b npegenax TpaHcrpaHuHHbix peru0H0B.*
CocTOHHHe ynacTHH norpaHiiMHbix perHOHOB yKpaHHbi b TpaHcrpaHHHHOM coTpygHHHecTBe: oÖ3op
B YKpauHe TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHunecTBO cerogHa paccMaTpuBaeTca b gByx nnocKOcrax - KaK uHCTpyMeHT pa3BuTua norpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM u KaK ^aKTop peanu3a^uu ee eBpouHTe^pa^uoHHbIx ycrpeMneHuM.
TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHunecTBO norpaHuHHbix o6nacreM YKpauHbi u cocegHux crpaH ycn0BH0 mo«ho pa3genuTb Ha gBa "HanpaBneHua" [2]:
1) TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHunecTBO, KOTopoe npoucxoguT Ha rpaHu^ YKpauHbi c EC u PyMbiHueM, BCTynneHue KOTopoM b EBpocoro3 3annaHup0BaH0 Ha 2007 r.;
2) TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHuHecTßo b TaK Ha3HBaeM0M hobom norpaHuHbe, KoTopoe HeKoTopHe yKpauHcKue uccnegoßaTenu onpegenaroT KaK coBoKynHocTb ucropuHecKux u H0B006pa30ßaßmuxca co^uanbHHx u ^K0H0MUHecKux CBa3eM Bgonb ^paHu^ 6biBmux coßeTcKux pecny6nuK, b HacTHocru yKpauHH, Poccuu, Eenopycuu u MongoBH. ^na Ka^goro u3 yKa3aHHbix "HanpaßneHuM" cy^ecTßyroT pa3HHe 3agaHu. EnaBHoM 3agaHeM coTpygHuHecTBa Ha rpaHu^ c EC u PyMHHueM aßnaeTca npeogoneHue nocnegcrßuM Bonno^eHua b coßeTcKue BpeMeHa K0H^e^^uu rpaHu^i KaK nuHuu pacnpegeneHua u ycuneHua ero K0HTaKTH0H $yH^uu, KoTopaa, cpegu gpyroro, npegycMaTpußaeT "Hegony^eHue npoßegeHua . ..hobhx pa3rpaHuHuTenbHbix nuHuM" nocne pacmupeHua EC b Mae 2004 r. HMeHHo Ha ^T0M nono^eHuu genaeTca ygapeHue b Coo6^eHuu EßponeMcKoM KoMuccuu gna CoßeTa u EßponeMcKoro napnaMeHTa "PacmupeHHaa Eßpona - cocegcTBo: H0Baa cTpyKTypa oTHomeHuM c HamuMu boctohhhmu u mihhmu cocegaMu" [3]. Pa3ßuTue TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa b "hobom norpaHuHbe", Hapagy c 3agaHaMu ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 u KynbTypHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, uMeeT e^e ogHo - npeogoneHue ncuxonoruHecKoro gucK0M$0pTa, kotophh b03huk y MecTHbix ^meneM TeppuTopuM, cTaßmux norpaHuHHHMu BcnegcTBue ge3UHTe^pa^uu CCCP.
CerogHa TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHuHecTBo b o6oux HanpaßneHuax cTanKußaeTca c hobhmu BH30ßaMu, K0T0pwe npegcraßnaroT yrpo3y 6e3onacHocTu Ha rpaHu^x yKpauHH, a uMeHHo: HeneranbHaa Mu^pa^ua, Toproßna nrogbMu, K0HTpa6aHga, onacHeMmuMu BugaMu K0TopoM cHuTaeTca nepeß03 HapK0TuK0B u opy^ua.
Oco6eHHocTbro pa3ßuTua TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa Ha rpaHu^x yKpauHH aßnaeTca bhcokuh ypoßeHb uHCTUTyanu3a^uu. npe^ge ßcero ^T0 KacaeTca roro-3anagHoM rpaHu^i Hamero rocygapcTBa, rge coTpygHuHecTBo ocy^ecrßnaeTca b npegenax HeTwpex eßp0peru0H0ß - KapnaTCKoro, "Eyr", "Hu^hum ^yHaM", "BepxHuM npyT" - npu yHacTuu OgeccKoM, HepH0Bu^K0H, HßaH0-OpaHK0BCK0M, ^bobckoh, 3aKapnaTCKoM u Bo.hhckoh o6nacreM. B "hobom norpaHuHbe" pa3ßuTue TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa TaK^e uMeeT TeHgeH^uro k uHCTUTyanu3a^uu: b anpene 2003 r. c03gaH0 EßpoperuoH "^Henp", oxßaTHßaro^uM HepHuroßCKyro o6nacTb yKpauHH, EpaHCKy o6nacTb Poccuu u roMenbCKyro o6nacTb Eenapycu; b Hoa6pe 2003 r. Me^gy XapbK0BCK0H (yKpauHa) u EenropogcKoM (Poccua) o6nacTaMu nognucaHo CornameHue 06 06pa30ßaHuu EßpoperuoHa "Cno6o^aH^uHa".
•	B yKpauHe cpegu ochobhhx $aKTopoß, K0T0pwe cgep^ußaroT pa3ßuTue TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, moxho Ha3ßaTb TaKue:
•	Hegoo^HKa co CTopoHH ^HTpanbHoM BnacTu TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa KaK uHCTpyMeHTa TeppuTopuanbHoro/peruoHanbHoro pa3ßuTua u ynyHmeHue KaHecTßa «u3hu nrogeM, K0T0pwe «ußyT b norpaHuHHbix peruoHax yKpauHH;
•	orpaHuHeHHocTb CTpaTeruHecKoro BugeHua 3agaH u nepcneKTuß pa3ßuTua TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, KaK co CTopoHH npaßuTenbCTßa, TaK u co CTopoHH MecTHwx opraHoB BnacTu yKpauHH, a TaK^e "oTcyTCTßue npußHHeK o6^ero nnaHupoßaHua pa3ßuTua norpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM" [4];
•	Mu3epHHH ypoßeHb $uHaHC0B0H noggep^Ku o6^ux TpaHcrpaHuHHbix npoeKToß, KaK co CTopoHH npaßuTenbCTßa, TaK u co CTopoHH MecTHbix opraHoß Bnacru (3a ucKnroHeHueM o6ycTpoMcTßa norpaHuHHoM uH^pacrpyKTypbi);
•	cna6ocTb uHCTUTy^u0HH0Ü 6a3M peruoHanbHoro pa3BuTua, KoTopaa b norpaHuHHbix peruoHax gon^Ha urpaTb ponb ogHoro u3 gBu^uTeneü TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa;
•	oTcyTCTBue y MecTHux opraHoB Bnacru oco3HaHua Toro, hto 3agaHa pa3BuTua TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa Tpe6yeT ot hux $yH^uü K00pguHa^uu, a He «ecTKoro agMuHucTpupoBaHua. KaK cnegcTBue, k BHegpeHuro npoeKToB TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa npuBneKaeTca BecbMa Mano npegnpuHuMaTeneü u HenpaBuTenbCTBeHH^ix op^aHU3a^uü.
Cpegu $aKTopoB, K0T0pue cgep^uBaroT pa3BepTbiBaHue coTpygHuHecTBa Bgonb rpaHu^ ^KC^epTM TaK^e oTMeHaroT [5]: "Hpe3MepHyro aM6u^u03H0CTb u, BMecre c TeM, HeHeTKocTb Muccuu $yH^uoHupoBaHHa eBpoperuoHoB Ha rpaHu^x YKpauHbi u rocygapcTB ^HTpanbHoü EBponu, K0T0pue geKnapupyroT crpeMneHue pemuTb o6^ue npo6neMM bo Bcex c^epax o6^ecTBeHHoü ^u3hu"; hu3kuü ypoBeHb c0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua TeppuTopuü, K0T0pue aBnaroTca yHacTHuKaMu TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, cpaBHuTenbHo co cpegHuMu Ha^uoHanbHMMu noKa3aTenaMu; pa3H0CTb "Me^gy ypoBHaMu ge^eHTpanu3a^uu ynpaBneHua b CTpaHax ^HTpanbHoü EBponu u YKpauHe; c^e^u$uKy yKpauHCKoü npaBoBoü cucreMbi, HopMM KoTopoü HacTo BCTynaroT b Konnu3uro c HopMaMu EC b c^epe ynpaBneHua, npegnpuHuMaTenbCKoü geaTenbHocru".
HamioHa.ibHan HopMaTHBHo-npaBoBaa öa3a pa3BHTHH TpaHcrpaHHHHoro coTpygHHHecTBa
YHacTue npurpaHuHHbix o6nacreü YKpauHbi b TpaHcrpaHuHHoM coTpygHuHecTBe 6a3upyeTca Ha goBonbHo pa3BuToü HopMaTuBHo-npaBoBoü 6a3e. B cooTBeTCTBuu c nocTaHoBneHueM BepxoBHoü Pagu YKpauHbi ot 14.07.1993 r. YKpauHa npucoeguHunacb k "EBponeücKoü paMoHHoü K0HBeH^uu o TpaHcrpaHuHHoM coTpygHuHecTBe Me^gy TeppuTopuanbHMMu o6^uHaMu unu BnacraMu", KoTopaa BMecTe c gByMa npoToKonaMu aBnaeTca HacTbro Ha^u0HanbH0^0 3aK0H0gaTenbCTBa YKpauHbi. O6^ue npaB0Bue 0CH0BaHua gna yHacTua b TpaHcrpaHuHHoM coTpygHuHecTBe MecTHux TeppuTopuanbHbix o6^uh unu BnacTeü ycraHaBnuBaeT "EBponeücKaa xapTua MecTHoro caMoynpaBneHua" (paTu$u^upoBaHHaa 3aK0H0M YKpauHbi ot 15.07.1997 r.), 3aK0HM YKpauHbi "O MecTHoM caMoynpaBneHuu" (ot 21.05.1997 r.) u "O MecTHbix rocygapcrBeHHbix agMUHucTpa^uax" (ot 09.04.1999 r.).
HacTbro 3aK0H0gaTenbH0ü 6a3M YKpauHbi, KoTopaa TaK^e pernaMeHTupyeT TpaHcrpaHuHHue oTHomeHua, aBnaeTca u pag gBycTopoHHux cornameHuü, b HacTHocTu: CornameHue o go6pococegcKux oTHomeHuax u coTpygHuHecTBo Me^gy Pecny6nuKoü nonbma u YKpauHoü ot 18.05.1992 r. (npuo6peno cuny 30.12.1992 r.); ^oroBop 06 0CH0Bax go6pococegcTBa u coTpygHuHecTBa Me^gy YKpauHoü u BeHrepcKoü Pecny6nuKoü ot 6.12.1991 r.; ^oroBop o cocegcTBe, gpy^ecKux oTHomeHuax u coTpygHuHecTBe Me^gy YKpauHoü u Cn0Ba^K0Ü Pecny6nuKoü ot 29.06.1993 r.; ^oroBop 06 oTHomeHuax go6pococegcTBa u coTpygHuHecTBa Me^gy YKpauHoü u PyMMHueü ot 2.06.1997 r.; ^oroBop o gpy^6e, coTpygHuHecTBe u napTHepcTBe Me^gy YKpauHoü u PoccuücKoü Oegepa^ueü ot 31 ceHTa6pa 1997 r.; CornameHue Me^gy npaBuTenbCTB0M YKpauHbi u npaBuTenbCTB0M Pecny6nuKu MongoBa o coTpygHuHecTBe Me^gy norpaHuHHMMu o6nacraMu YKpauHbi u
agMUHucrpaTUBHO-TeppuTopuanbHbiMu eguHu^Mu Pecny6nuKu MongoBa ot 11 MapTa 1997 r.
HysHO TaKse ynoMaHyTb YKa3bi npe3ugeHTa YKpauHbi "O Mepax no pa3BUTuro ^K0H0MunecK0^0 coTpygHunecTBa o6nacTeM YKpauHbi c conpegenbHbiMH norpaHunHbiMu o6nacTaMu PoccuMckoM Oegepa^uu" (M 112/94 ot 25 MapTa 1994 r. c u3MeHeHuaMu u gononHeHuaMu, BHeceHHbiMu YKa3OM npe3ugeHTa YKpauHbi ot 3 uroHa 1994 r. M 271/94, ot 9 uroHa 1994 r. M 287/94) u "O Mepax no pa3BUTuro ^K0H0MunecK0^0 coTpygHunecTBa o6nacTeM YKpauHbi c conpegenbHbiMH o6nacTaMu Pecny6nuKu Eenapycb u agMUHucrpaTUBHO-TeppuTopuanbHbiMu eguHu^Mu Pecny6nuKu MongoBa" (M 271/94 ot 3 uroHa 1994 r.).
KpoMe Toro, cy^ecrayeT HeMano gBycropoHHux cornameHuM, K0T0pbie pernaMeHTupyroT coTpygHunecTBo Mesgy YKpauHoM u Ha3BaHHbiMu BMme rocygapcTBaMu no Bonpocax pesuMa rpaHu^i, nepegBuseHua nrogeM, TpaHcnopTHbix cpegcTB u T0Bap0B nepe3 rpaHu^i, coTpygHunecTBa Mesgy norpaHunHbiMu cnys6aMu.
K TpaHcrpaHunHOMy coTpygHunecTBy uMeroT npaMoe 0TH0meHue goKyMeHTbi, K0T0pbie onpegenaroT cTpaTerunecKue HanpaBneHua gBuseHua YKpauHbi b cTopoHy EC. ^T0, npesge Bcero, "CTpaTerua uHTe^pa^uu YKpauHbi b EBponeMcKuM Coro3", yTBepsgeHHaa YKa3OM npe3ugeHTa YKpauHbi ot 11.06.1998 r., a TaKse "Ha^uoHanbHaa nporpaMMa uHTe^pa^uu YKpauHbi b EBponeMcKuM Coro3", ogo6peHHaa b ceHTa6pe 2002 r.
Heo6xoguMocTb yc0BepmeHcTB0BaHua H0pMaTUBH0-npaB0B0M 6a3bi TpaHcrpaHunHoro u MesperuoHanbHoro coTpygHunecTBa 6bina onpegeneHa b PacnopaseHuu Ka6uHeTa MuHucTpoB YKpauHbi "O MeponpuaTuax no peanu3a^uu KoH^e^^uu rocygapcTBeHHoM peruoHanbHoM nonuTUKu" ot 13.09.2001 r. A 29 anpena 2002 r. 6bino npuHaTO nocTaHOBneHue Ka6uHeTa Muhuctpob YKpauHbi 06 "HeK0T0pbix Bonpocax pa3BUTua TpaHcrpaHunHoro coTpygHunecTBa u eBpoperHOHOB". B yKa3aHH^ix goKyMeHTax onpegenaroTca TaKue ocHOBHbie npuopuTeTbi:
•	yKpenneHue KOHKypeHTocnoco6HocTu yKpauHcKux TeppuTopuM Ha 3anagHoM rpaHu^ rocygapcTBa;
•	crpouTenbcTBO nyHKTOB nepeceneHua rpaHu^i u cooTBercTByro^eM uH^pacrpyKTypbi;
•	cocTaBneHue hobhx TpaHcrpaHunHbix cornameHuM;
•	pa3BHTue ceTu norucrunecKux ^rnpoB u ^rnpoB noggepsKu npegnpuHHMaTenbcTBa;
•	K00pguHa^ua C0^uanbH0-^K0H0MunecK0^0 u ^K0n0^unecK0^0 pa3BUTua norpaHunHbix peru0H0B;
•	^apM0HU3a^ua 3aK0H0gaTenbcTBa YKpauHbi b yKa3aHHbix c^epax c eBponeMcKUM 3aK0H0gaTenbcTB0M.
24 uroHa 2004 r. 6bin npuHaT 3aKOH YKpauHbi "O TpaHcrpaHunHOM coTpygHunecTBe", KOTopbiM cpegu nponero onpegenaeT ^nb u ^puH^u^H rocygapcTBeHHoM nonuTUKu b c^epe TpaHcrpaHunHoro coTpygHunecTBa, n0nH0M0nua cy6beKTOB TpaHcrpaHunHoro coTpygHunecTBa YKpauHbi, ^puH^u^H u $opMbi rocygapcTBeHHoM noggepsKu TpaHcrpaHunHoro coTpygHunecTBa u ero ^uHaHcoBoe o6ecneneHue.
npOÖ^eMW H nepCneKTHBbl pa3BHTHH nOrpaHHMHblX TeppHTOpHH YKpaHHW CKBO3b npu3My 3aKOHa "O TpaHCrpaHHHHOM COTpyflHHHeCTBe"
Mm He 3agaeMca ^.bro ge.aTb npaBOBOH aHa.u3 ^T0^0 3aKOHa. Humb yKaseM, hto oh He BxoguT b npoTuBopeHue c geMcTByro^uM 3aK0H0gaTe.bCTB0M YKpauHbi, KOTopoe per.aMeHTupyeT pa3H006pa3Hbie Bonpocw yHacTua MecTHbix o6^uh u B.acTeM ee norpaHuHHbix o6.acTeM b TpaHcrpaHuHHOM coTpygHuHecTBe.
Be3 coMHeHua, k no.osuTe.bHWM MOMeHTaM 3aK0Ha HysHO OTHecTu HeTKoe onpege.eHue cy6teKT0B TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa (TeppuTopua.bHbie o6^uhm, ux npegcTaBuTe.bHwe opraHbi, MecTHbie opraHbi ucno.HuTe.bHoM B.acTu YKpauHbi), a TaKse ero yHacTHuKOB, K0T0pwMu CHuTaroTca ropuguHecKoe u $u3uHecKoe .u^, o6^ecTBeHHbie op^aHU3a^uu, K0T0pwe npuHuMaroT yHacTue b TpaHcrpaHuHHOM coTpygHuHecTBe [6]. noc.egHee BasHO yHuTbiBaa to, hto, KaK yse 0TMeHa.0Cb, ogHoM u3 yKpauHCKux pea.uM ocy^ecTB.eHua TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa go cux nop ocTaroTca nonbiTKu secTKoro agMuHucTpupoBaHua co CTopoHbi MecTHbix opraHOB B.acTu BMecTO K00pguHa^uu ycu.uM pa3Hbix urp0K0B. KcTaTu, caM 3aK0H, onpege.aa $yH^uu cy6teKT0B TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa YKpauHbi, ge.aeT a^eHT uMeHHO Ha ocy^ecTB.eHuu uMu K00pgUHa^U0HHHX $yH^uH.
O^HuBaa se MecTO 3aK0Ha "O TpaHcrpaHuHHOM coTpygHuHecTBe" b pa3BuTuu no.uTuKu peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua b YKpauHe, MOseM K0HCTaTup0BaTb, hto ero ochobhmm Heg0CTaTK0M aB.aeTca Mopa.bHaa ycTape.ocTb yse Ha MOMeHT npuHaTua. Mosho oTMeTuTb HeTwpe ochobhmx HegocTaTKa 3aK0Ha.
Bo-nepebix, oh ^aKTuHecKu urHopupyeT po.b TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa KaK ogHoro u3 uHCTpyMeHTOB peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua u He paccMaTpuBaeT ero KaK cocTaBHyro HacTb peruoHa.bHoM no.uTuKu b YKpauHe.
Bo-emopux, pa3pa6oTHuKaM 3aK0Ha He yga.ocb npeogo.eTb goMuHupyro^ero cpegu yKpauHCKux OpraHOB rocygapcTBeHHoM B.acTu pa3Hbix ypoBHeM B3r.aga Ha TpaHcrpaHuHHoe c0TpygHuHecTB0 KaK uHCTpyMeHT npeuMy^ecTBeHHO ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 coTpygHuHecTBa. B HacTHOCTu, o6^yro K00pguHa^uro TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa 3aK0H0M B03.0seH0 Ha c^e^ua.bH0 yno.HOMOHeHHbiM ^HTpa.bHbiM opraH ucno.HuTe.bHoM B.acTu no BonpocaM ^K0H0MUHecK0H no.uTuKu. Mesgy TeM, KaK aB.eHue TpaHcrpaHuHHoe c0TpygHuHecTB0 HaMHoro 6o.ee c.osHoe u MHoroMepHoe, oxBaTbiBaeT HaMHoro 6o.ee mupoKuM Kpyr acneKTOB su3HegeaTe.bH0CTu suTe.eM norpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM, HeM ^K0H0MUHecK0e c0TpygHuHecTB0.
B-mpembux, ^T0T 3aK0H 3aK0HcepBup0Ba. cy^ecTByro^ue ^opMbi rocygapcTBeHHoM ^uHaHCOBOH noggepsKu TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, a ^aKTuHecKu ee OTcyTCTBue. B HacTHOCTu, b 3aK0He yKa3aH0, hto "rocygapcTBeHHaa ^uHaHCOBaa noggepsKa MOseT npegocTaB.aTbca npoeKTaM (nporpaMMaM) TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, K0T0pwe uMeroT gocTaTOHHyro apryMem^uro OTHOcuTe.bHO ^$$eKTUBH0^0 pemeHua aKTya.bHbix npo6.eM u 6w.u 0T06paHbi Ha KOHKypcHOH OcHOBe.. ."[7]... OgHaKO uctohhuk u MexaHu3M npegocTaB.eHua TaKOH noggepsKu co CTopoHw rocygapcTBa He onpege.aroTca. 3gecb c.egyeT 3aMeTuTb, hto cerogHa npoeKTbi u nporpaMMbi TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, K0T0pwe ocy^ecTB.aroTca b norpaHuHHbix peruoHax YKpauHbi, 6o.bmeM HacTbro ^uHaHcupyroTca MesgyHapogHbiMu goHopaMu. npuHeM b 6o.ee ygo6HoM ^03u^uu HaxogaTca norpaHuHHbie peruoHbi YKpauHbi, pacno.oseHHbie Ha roro-3anagHoM rpaHu^ (ceHHac ^T0 rpaHu^ c EC u PyMbiHueM). Ohu uMeroT B03M0SH0CTb no.yHaTb ^uHaHcupoBaHue co CTopoHbi EC Hepe3 nporpaMMy "TACHC - norpaHuHHoe coTpygHuHecTBo" (Tacis CBC), a, HaHuHaa c 2004 roga, - b paMKax "nporpaMM cocegcTBa".
158
Ha npoTa^eHuu 1998-2002 rr. EBponeMcKoM KoMuccueM no nporpaMMe "Tacis CBC" YKpauHe c ^.bro ^uHaHcupoBaHua npoeKToB TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecrBa, K0T0pue ocy^ecTB.a.ucb u ocy^ecrB.aroTca HbiHe Ha TeppuTopuax Bo.mhckoM, HbBoBcKoM, 3aKapnaTcKoM, HBaHo-OpaHKoBcKoM, HepH0Bu^K0M u OgeccKoM o6.acreM, 6bi.o npegocraB.eHo 22,5 m.h. eBpo [8]. H 3gecb EC aB.aeTca Hau6o.bmuM goHopoM. Hau6o.ee npo6.eMHbiMu aB.aroTca cerogHamHue bo3mo^hoctu oTHocuTe.bHo ^uHaHcupoBaHua TpaHcrpaHuHHbix npoeKToB u nporpaMM, K0T0pue BHegparoTca b "hobom norpaHunbe", b HacTHocru Ha rpaHu^ YKpauHbi, Poccuu u Ee.apycu. ^eMcraue nporpaMMM "Tacis CBC" u "nporpaMM cocegcTBa" He pacnpocTpaHaeTca Ha ^Tu TeppuTopuu. ^0^T0My b yc.oBuax oTcyTCTBHa $umhcoboM noggep^Ku co cropoHbi rocygapcTBa u MecrHbix 6rog^eT0B HageaTbca Ha ocy^ecra.eHue MacmTa6Hbix TpaHcrpaHuHHbix npoeKToB, KoTopbie Hy^garoTca b 3HanuTe.bH0M ^uHaHcupoBaHuu, noKa hto HeB03M0^H0. HecMoTpa Ha BnenaT.aro^ee, no nepBbiMu uToraM, Hana.o TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecrBa, KoTopoe npogeMoHcTpupoBa. EBpoperuoH "^Henp" [9], Bpag .u ctout HageaTbca, hto b 6.u^aMmee BpeMa b ero paMKax cMoryT 6biTb pea.u30BaHbi npoeKTM, nogo6Hbie MHoro.eTHuM npoeKTaM TACIC "npugyHaMcKue 03epa YKpauHM: nocToaHHoe BoccraHoB.eHue u 3a^uTa ^K0CucTeM" u " Eu3Hec-HH$pacrpyKTypa b OgeccKoM o6.acTu - EBpoperuoH "Hu^huM ^yHaM". Ka^gbiM u3 hux uMe. 6rog^eT 2,3 m.h. eBpo. nepBbiM npoeKT y^e 3aBepmeH, a BTopoM ceMnac ocy^ecrB.aeTca Ha TeppuTopuu OgeccKoM o6.acru b paMKax EBpoperuoH "Hu^huM ^yHaM".
B-nemeepmux, 3aK0H He ynuTbiBaeT u3MeHeHua MexaHu3Ma noggep^Ku TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa co cropoHbi EBponeMcKoro Coro3a, b HacTHocru hobmx uHcrpyMeHT0B go6pococegcTBa u pe^opMupoBaHue cooTBeTcrayro^ux nporpaMM EBponeMcKoM Komuccuu (Phare/Tacis CBC u INTERREG) noc.e o6baB.eHua coo6^eHuM "Eo.ee mupoKaa EBpona -cocegcTBo: H0Baa cTpyKTypa oTHomeHuM c HamuMu boctohhmmu u ro^HbMu cocegaMu" (Eprocce.b, 11.03.2003 r.) u "npoK.agbiBaa nyTb g.a BHegpeHua HoBoro uHcTpyMeHTa oTHomeHuM co crpaHaMu-cocegaMu" (Eprocce.b, 1.07.2003 r.).
3gecb Ba^HbMu aB.aroTca gBa MoMeHTa. nepBbiM nepeK.uKaeTca c Bbimeu3.o:®:eHHbiMu 3aMenaHHaMu oTHocuTe.bHo cocToaHua $umhcoboM noggep^Ku npoeKToB u nporpaMM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecrBa co ctopohm rocygapcTBa u MecTHoM B.acTu. OgHoM u3 ochobhmx Tpe6oBaHuM oTHocuTe.bHo ux ^uHaHcupoBaHua EBponeMcKoM KoMuccueM no nporpaMMe "Tacis CBC" u "nporpaMMaMu cocegcTBa" ecrb o6ecneneHue caMuM pe^u^ueHT0M $umhcoboM noMo^u b npege.ax He MeHee neM 20% ctoumoctu npoeKTa. Bo MHorux c.ynaax MecrHbie 6rog^eTM He cnoco6HM Buge.uTb cpegcTBa Ha nogo6Hoe co^uHaHcupoBaHue.
BTopoM M0MeHT cBa3aH c a^eHT0M Ha npuMeHeHuu nporpaMMHoro nogxoga k pa3BuTuro coTpygHunecTBa Ha rpaHu^ pacmupeHHoro EC u cTpaH-KaHgugaT0B (b HacTHocru PyMMHuu), hto cge.aHo b Coo6^eHuu Ebpokomuccuu "npoK.aguBaa nyTb g.a BHegpeHua HoBoro uHcTpyMeHTa oTHomeHuM co crpaHaMu-cocegaMu". Penb ugeT o Heo6xoguMocru o6^ero n.aHupoBaHua u K00pguHa^uu pa3BuTua norpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM MecrHbiMu opraHaMu B.acTu cocegHux rocygapcTB, a TaK^e BHegpeHue ^puH^u^a ge^mpa.u30BaHH0M op^aHU3a^uu "nporpaMM cocegcTBa". noc.egHuM npegycMaTpuBaeT noBumeHue po.u co6crBeHH0 MecrHbix opraHoB B.acTu b onpege.eHuu npuopuTeToB TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecrBa g.a toM u.u toM TeppuTopuu.
H 3gecb cTaH0BaTca Har.agHMMu c.egcTBua T0pM0^eHua agMuHucrpaTuBHoM pe^opMbi b YKpauHe, b HacTHocru Heg0craT0HH0crb B03M0^H0cTeM g.a ocy^ecrB.eHua
159
crpaTerunecKoro n.aHupoBaHua u K00pguHa^uu TpaHcrpaHuHHbix nporpaMM co cropoHH opraHOB MecTHoro caMoynpaB.eHua u ^ecTKaa nognuHeHHocrb MecTHbix opraHOB rocygapcTBeHHoM B.acru ^rnpa. H Bgo6aBOK b YKpauHe OHeHb orpaHuHeHHbiM onwT npuB.eneHua HenpaBuTe.bcTBeHHbix op^aHU3a^uM, b tom Huc.e "M03r0Bbix ^rnpoB", k n.aHupoBaHuro TeppuTopua.bHoro pa3BuTua, KOTopoe TO^e oc.a6.aeT bo3mo^hoctu g.a 6o.ee ^$$eKTHBH0^0 pemeHua KOHKpeTHbix npo6.eM.
BonpeKu TOMy, hto 3aKOH YKpauHH "O TpaHcrpaHuHHOM coTpygHunecTBe" noHTu He nog.e^uT KpuTuKe c npaBOBoM tohku 3peHua, ogHaKO oh geMOHcTpupyeT omu6oHHocTb peruoHa.bHoM no.uTuKu, KOTopaa ocy^ecra.a.acb b HameM cTpaHe u npuBe.a k ^aKTuHecKOMy OTcyTcTBuro ^$$eKTUBHbIx agMuHucrpaTuBHbix, ^uHaHcoBbix u uHCTUTy^uoHHHx uHcTpyMeHTOB TeppuTopua.bHoro pa3BuTua u o6ecneHeHue KOHKypeHTocnoco6HocTu yKpauHcKux peruoHOB. H cerogHamHue npo6.eMbi ocy^ecTB.eHua TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecraa MecTHHMu o6^uHaMu u B.acTaMu YKpauHH aB.aeTca npaMHM OTpa^eHueM HegocTaTKOB ^ToM no.uTuKu.
OnwT ocy^ecTB.eHua TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecraa ^HTpa.bHoeBponeMcKuMu cocegaMu YKpauHH noKa3HBaeT, hto oho paccMaTpuBaeTca umu KaK cocraB.aro^aa no.uTuKu peruoHa.bHoro pa3Buraa. YKa3aHHHe crpaHbi He nocTaHOB.aroT c^e^ua.bHbIx 3aKOHOB o TpaHcrpaHuHHOM coTpygHuHecTBe, uMea BMecTe c TeM 3aKOHH o peruoHa.bHOM pa3BuTuu. HanpuMep, b BeHrpuu geMcTByeT 3aKOH "O peruoHa.bHOM pa3BuTuu u $u3uHecKOM n.aHupoBaHuu", cor.acHo KOTopoMy 6h. co3gaH Ha^uoHa.bHHM coBeT peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua KaK opraH, hto go.^eH noMoraTb npaBure.bcTBy crpaHbi ocy^ecTB.aTb 3agaHu peruoHa.bHoro pa3Burua. K ero K0M^eTeH^uu, cpegu npoHero, npuHag.e^aT K00pguHa^ua nporpaMM pa3BuTua Ha Ha^u0Ha.bH0M u peru0Ha.bH0M ypoBHax u pa3pa6oTKa npeg.o^eHuM 0TH0cuTe.bH0 pacnpege.eHua 6rog^eTHoro ^uHaHcupoBaHua noTpe6HocTeM peruoHOB [10]. Co3gaHa TaK^e BepTuKa.b c0BeT0B pa3BuTua, KaK peruoHOB, TaK u ye3goB c cooTBeTcrayro^uMu no.HOMOHuaMu. HHTepecHHM, Ha Ham B3r.ag, ecTb u onwT PyMHHuu, c KOTopoM YKpauHa uMeeT o6^yro rpaHu^ npoTa^Hocrbro 638,4 km. CoTpygHuHecTBO Me^gy norpaHuHHHMu peruoHaMu gByx cTpaH ocy^ecrB.aeTca b npege.ax Tpex eBpoperuoHOB - KapnaTcKoro, "Hu^huM ^yHaM" u "BepxHuM npyT".
PyMHHcKaa Moge.b pea.u3a^uu no.uTuKu peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua - ogHa u3 Hau6o.ee nparMaTuHHwx. B 1998 r. nap.aMeHT crpaHbi nocTaHOBu. 3aK0H "O peru0Ha.bH0M pa3BuTuu b PyMHHuu", cor.acHO KOTopoMy ee peruoHa.bHaa Hu3MeHHocrb 6w.a npuBegeHa b cooTBeTcTBue k K.accu$uKa^uu EC - NUTS (HoMeHK.aTypa TeppuTopua.bHbix eguHu^ g.a cTaTucTuHecKux ^.eM). Ho r.aBHoe to, hto ^T0T 3aK0H HeTKO onpege.aeT ^uHaHcoBwe u uHCTUTy^uoHHHe MexaHu3MH peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua, b HacTHocTu co3gaHua Ha^u0Ha.bH0^0 coBeTa, Ha^u0Ha.bH0^0 areHTcTBa u Ha^u0Ha.bH0^0 $OHga peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua, a TaK^e aHa.oruHHbix yHpe^geHuM, KOTopwe geMcTByroT b npege.ax Ka^goro u3 8 peruoHOB pa3BuTua, Ha KOTopwe 6w.a pa3ge.eHa TeppuTopua PyMHHuu [11]. Ochobhhm uHcTpyMeHTOM ocy^ecTB.eHua no.uTuKu peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua aB.aroTca areHTcTBa peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua (APP), k ^yH^uaM KOTopwx npuHag.e^aT pa3pa6oTKa cTpaTeruM peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua u n.aHOB ucn0.b30BaHua ^0Hg0B, pea.u3a^ua nporpaMM peruoHa.bHoro pa3BuTua [12]. B norpaHuHHbix peruoHax PyMHHuu APP ecTb ogHuMu u3 r.aBHbix urpoKOB Ha no.e TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa, Begb ohu uMeroT g.a ^T0^0 cooTBeTcrayro^ue He.OBeHecKue, ^uHaHcoBwe u MaTepua.bHwe pecypcw. Ye3gw	coBeTa Bbino.HaroT co6cTBeHHO $yH^uu
160
K00pguHa^uu u cogeMcTBue. H Bgo6aBOK 3aK0H0gaTenbH0e none, b KOTopoM pa6oTaroT Henpu6binbHbie op^aHU3a^uu b PyMbiHuu, a uMeHHO b TaKoM $opMe cy^ecrayroT TaM APP, CTuMynupyeT ux aKTuBHOCTb. Bce ^T0 o6ycnaBnuBaeT Hpe3BbiHaMHyro, cpaBHuTenbHO c yKpauHCKuM onbiTOM, ^$$eKTUBH0CTb ynacrua norpaHuHHbix peru0H0B PyMbiHuu b TpaHcrpaHuHHOM coTpygHunecTBe u cuHepreTunecKuM ^$$eKT ot o6beguHeHua co6cTBeHHbix pecypcoB u noMO^u co cropoHbi EC u Me«gyHapogHbix goHopoB. YnuTbiBaa to, hto 3aKOH YKpauHbi "O TpaHcrpaHuHHOM coTpygHunecTBe" npaKTunecKu Hunero He npu6aBun k y«e cy^ecrayro^eMy 3aK0H0gaTenbH0My nonro, b KOTopoM ocy^ecTBnaeTca TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHunecTBO MecTHbix o6^uh u opraHOB Bnacru norpaHuHHbix peru0H0B HameM crpaHbi u crpaH-cocegeM, ero "g06aB0HH0M CT0uM0CTbro" Morno 6m craTb neTKoe onpegeneHue MexaHu3Ma npegocraBneHua ^uHaHCOBoro cogeMcTBua co CTopoHM rocygapcTBa. HanpuMep, ^nec006pa3H0 C03gaTb rocygapcTBeHHuM $OHg noggep«Ku npoeKTOB u nporpaMM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa, kotopmM, b HacTHOCTu, 6bin 6m uctohhukom co^uHaHcupoBaHua npoeKTOB, KOTopue BHegparoTca no nporpaMMaM EBponeMcKoM Komuccuu. Ho bo BpeMa OopyMa napTHepcTB-2004, kotopmM npoxogun b paMKax IV ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 ^opyMa (HbBOB, 6-7 OKTa6pa 2004 roga), npegcTaBuTenb ynpaBneHua no BonpocaM K00pguHa^uu nporpaMM Me«gyHapogHoM TexHunecKoM noMO^u u coTpygHunecTBa c EC u CTpaHaMu EBponbi MuHucrepcTBa ^K0H0MUKU u eBponeMcKoM uHTe^pa^uu YKpauHbi yKa3an, hto HMHemHaa H0pMaTuBH0-npaBOBaa 6a3a u npaKTuKa rocygapcTBeHHoro ynpaBneHua genaroT HeBO3MO«HMM TaKoM mar.
BnponeM, Hy«HO OTMeTuTb, hto nocne MHoroneTHux pa3roBopoB o Heo6xoguMOCTu pa3BuTua u noggep«Ku Ha rocygapcTBeHHOM ypoBHe ceTu areHTCTB peruoHanbHoro pa3BuTua, KOTopue b norpaHuHHbix peruoHax YKpauHbi Mornu 6m craTb gBuraTenaMu TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa, ux co3gaHue Hananocb u npogon«aeT npoucxoguTb ctuxuMho, npeo6nagaro^uM 06pa30M 6e3 nro6oro cogeMcTBua co CTopoHM rocygapcTBa. YKpauHCKue APP u HenpaBuTenbCTBeHHue op^aHU3a^uu, KOTopue pa6oTaroT b c^epe peruoHanbHoro u MecTHoro pa3BuTua, 6onbmeM nacTbro cy^ecrayroT 3a cneT nonyneHua ^uHaHcupoBaHua ot 3arpaHuHHbix u Me«gyHapogHux goHopoB. TeM He MeHee, K00pguHa^ua geaTenbHOcru areHTCTB, KaK Me«gy co6oM, TaK u c opraHaMu rocygapcTBeHHoM Bnacru u MecTHoro caMoynpaBneHua ceMnac OTcyTCTByeT. 3aTeM b ocy^ecTBneHuu TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHunecTBa He BHegpaeTca KOMnneKCHbiM nogxog k pemeHuro npo6neM pa3BuTua norpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM YKpauHbi u CHu«aeTca cuHepreTunecKuM ^$$eKT, KOToporo mo«ho 6uno 6m gocrunb npu ycnoBuu Hagne«a^eM K00pguHa^uu u Me«ceKTopHoro coTpygHunecTBa.
Onupaacb Ha onuT eBponeMcKux crpaH, u npe«ge Bcero ^HTpanbHoeBponeMcKux cocegeM YKpauHbi, KOTopue npomnu nyTb ot C0^uanucTUHecK0^0 narepa k nneHCTBy b EC, mo«ho yTBep«gaTb, hto u3no«eHHbie Bume npo6neMbi HeBO3MO«HO pemuTb ^parneHTapHbiMu MeponpuaTuaMu. ^nb rocygapcTBeHHoM nonuTuKu b c^epe TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa, K0T0paa np0B03rnameHa b cooTBeTcrayro^eM 3aKOHe - "co3gaHue 6naronpuaTHux ycnoBuM gna ^$$eKTUBH0^0 u B3auMOBurogHoro coTpygHunecTBa cy6beKTOB u ynacrHuKOB TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa YKpauHM, noBumeHue C0^uanbH0-^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pa3BuTua peru0H0B YKpauHM u ypoBHa «u3Hu HaceneHua", -MO«eT 6biTb gocTurHyTa numb npu ycnoBuu BHegpeHua ^nocraoM u ^$$eKTUBHoM nonuTuKu peruoHanbHoro pa3BuTua. OHa gon«Ha npegycMaTpuBaTb co3gaHue geMcrBeHHbix npaBOBMx, UHCTUTy^U0HHbIX u ^uHaHCOBbix uHCTpyMeHTOB, KOTOpue B COHeTaHuu C
161
agMuHucTpaTuBH0H pe$0pM0H o6ecneHuno 6h ycuneHue ponu MecTHoro caMoynpaßneHua u ge^eHTpanu3a^uu rocygapcTßeHHoro ynpaßneHua.
1.	Klojcnik J. The Transfrontier Regional Co-operation Model for Nothern-Eastern Slovenia // Regional Contact. 1997. No 12. P. 350.
2.	Po3mupeHHa GßponeMcbKoro Coro3y: ßnnuß Ha ßigHocuHu yKparnu 3 ^HTpanbHoeßponeMcbKuMu cycigaMu. K., 2004. C. 229.
3.	Wider Europe - Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Brussels, 11.3.2003. COM (2003) 104 final. - http://europa.eu.comm/ external_relations/we/doc/com03_104_en.pdf
4.	Po3mupeHHa GßponeMcbKoro Coro3y..., c. 142.
5.	TaM caMo, c. 141-142.
6.	3aK0H yKparnu "npo TpaHCKopgoHHe cmßpo6iTHu^rßo" (26.06.2004 p. M 1861-IV) // ra3. "ronoc yKpai'Hu", 22 nunHa 2004p.
7.	TaM caMo.
8.	European Neighbourhood Policy. Country Report. Ukraine. Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels, 12.5.2004. SEC (2004) 566. COM (2004) 373 final. P. 4.
9.	EßpoperoH "^Henp" - npo6neMH pa3ßuTua u $yH^uoHupoßaHua. MaTepuanw Me^gyHapogHoM K0H$epeH^uu (HepHuroß, 11 Hoa6pa 2003 r.). HepHuroß, 2004. - 159 c.
10.	The XXI/1996. Act on Regional Development and Physical Planning // Regional Development in Hungary. Budapest, 1998. P. 87-105.
11.	Regional Development Policy in Romania. Green Paper. Romanian Government and European Commission, 1997. P. 32-39.
12.	^oKnagmme guß.: CrygeHHiK0B I. PyMyHCbKuM mnax (nepcneKTußu po3ßuTKy AAP) // yKpaiHCbKuM perioHanbHuM ßicHuK. 2000. M 6. C. 4. - // http://www.urr.org.ua/data/pdf/URR-6.pdf
* B ^ToM CTaTbe mh He onpegenaeM 6a30Bbix noHaTuM, b HacTHocru "norpaHuHHHM peruoH" u "TpaHcrpaHuHHHM peruoH". npegno^eHHwe aBTopoM ge$uHu^uu cm.: CTygeHHuKoß H. TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHuHecTßo u ero MecTo b peruoHanbHoM pa3ßuTuu // PeruoHanbHaa nonuTuKa b CTpaHax Eßponw: ypoKu gna yKpauHH / nog peg. C. MaKcuMeHKo. K., 2000. C. 138-170; OeH0MeH eßp0peru0H0ß b K0HTeKcre MeTogonoruu ucT0puK0-peru0HanbHbix uccnegoßaHuM // Hcropua yKpauHH. Manou3ßecTHwe uMeHa, co6wTua, ^aKTbi (36. CTaTeM). K., 2003. Bun. 22-23. C. 187-201.
Hpoc.aB KupnymKo
ucnonHuTenbHuü gupeKTop EyKoBuHCKoro ^HTpa peK0Hcrpy^uu u pa3BuTua
(r. HepHoB^i, YKpauHa)
PErHOHA^bHAH H MECTHAH KOO^EPA^Hfl B TPAHCTPAHHHHOM PErHOHE PYMblHHH-YKPAHHA-PECnYB^HKA MO^OBA.
Pa3Hoo6pa3Hue K0HTaKTM — ^K0H0MUHecKue, co^uanbHMe, npo^eccuoHanbHbie, KynbTypHbie — b ^T0M peruoHe uMeroT gnuTenbHyro ucTopuro, 3HaHuTenbHyro uHTeHcuBHocTb, nono^uTenbHbiü, 3a HeK0T0puMu ucKnroHeHuaMu, onuT.
nocne BCTynneHua PyMMHuu b EBponeücKuü Coro3 1 aHBapa 2007 roga K0HTaKTM Ha peruoHanbHoM u MecTHoM ypoBHax ocy^ecranaroTca Ha KaHecTBeHHo uhoü nonuTuHecKoü 0CH0Be — EBponeücKoü nonuTuKe cocegcTBa.
nocne 3aBepmeHua CBoeü naToü bo.hm pacmupeHua EBponeücKuü Coro3 HaHan BHegpeHue EBponeücKoü nonuTuKu cocegcTBa (aHrn. European Neighborhood Policy) - hobmü nogxog no oTHomeHuro k cboum 16 crpaHaM-cocegaM, kotopmü uMeeT npeuMy^ecTBo Hag Tpagu^u0HH0Ü nonuTuKoü, ocHoBaHHoü Ha coTpygHuHecTBe. ^aHHaa nonuTuKa npoaBnaeTca b paMKax K0HC0nuga^uu cocegcKux oTHomeHuü u npegBuguT ycuneHue mupoKoro coTpygHuHecTBa c crpaHaMu-cocegaMu EC c ^nro C03gaHua TeppuTopuu 6narococToaHua u go6pococegcTBa, a TaK^e «Kpyra gpy3eü» Ha rpaHu^x Coo6^ecTBa.
EBponeücKaa nonuTuKa cocegcTBa (EnC) Mo^eT 6uTb 0TBeT0M Ha pacmupeHua ^paHu^ EC u Ha rpaHu^i pacmupeHua. Oco3HaBaa, hto C006^ecTB0 He Mo^eT pacmupaTca 6e3rpaHuHH0 3a KopoTKoe BpeMa u hto, ogHoBpeMeHHo, ero pacmupeHue npuBeno y^e k C03gaHHa ^0TeH^uanbH0 HecTa6unbHbix TeppuTopuü, EnC nuTaeTca pa3BuTb gpy^ecKoe cocegcTBo u TeppuTopuro gonrocpoHHoro 6narococToaHua no oTHomeHuro k cocegaM EC. OgHoBpeMeHHo, 0Ha npegBuguT co3gaHue hobmx .uhuü geneHua b EBpone u npogBu^eHue CTa6unbH0CTu u npo^eTaHua Ha hobmx rpaHu^x Coro3a. O6^eü ^nro EnC ecTb coTpygHuHecTBo c CTpaHaMu-napTHepaMu c ^nro cruMynupoBaHua npo^cca nonuTuHecKoro u ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pe^opMupoBaHua, npogBu^eHua 6onee TecHoro ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 noHuMaHua, CToüKoro pa3BuTua, npegocraBneHua nonuTuHecKoü noggep^Ku u $uHaHC0B0ü noMo^u.
EC B3ano 06a3aTenbCTB0 noggep^aTb ycunua CTpaH-cocegeü KacaTenbHo CHu^eHua ypoBHa 6egH0CTu u co3gaHua TeppuTopuu 6narococToaHua u o6^ux ^HHocreü, ocHoBaHHoü Ha yrny6neHuu ^K0H0MUHecK0Ü uHTe^pa^uu, 6onee TecHbix nonuTuHecKux u KynbTypHux oTHomeHuax, KoHconugupoBaHHoMy TpaHcrpaHuHHoMy coTpygHuHecTBe Ta o6^eMy npegynpe^geHuro koh^.uktob. noggep^Ka npegBuguT ucnonHeHue onpegeneHHux KpuTepueB, a gna 6onee npogBuHyTbix napTHepoB 6uno o6e^aHue nepcneKTuBM yHacTua Ha BHyTpeHHux puHKax u B03M0^H0CTb ycKopeHHoro
npucoeguHeHua go onpege.eHHbix coBMecTHbix nporpaMM b OTpac.ax Ky.bTypw, o6pa3oBaHua, cpegb u T.g.
B KOHTeKCTe «ycTa.ocTu ot pacmupeHua» EnC 6w.o npogyMaHO KaK a.bTepHaTuBa pacmupeHua EC. C gpyroM cropoHbi, xoTa n0CT0aHH0 ge.a.ocb yTOHHeHue, hto EnC He aB.aeTca KOMHaTOH osugaHua 6ygy^ero pacmupeHua, OHa He ucK.roHaeT b KaTeropuHHoM ^opMe H0B0e 6ygy^ee pacmupeHua b CTopoHy BocTOKa.
B 0CH0BaHuu EnC .esaT KaK a.bTpyucruHecKue, TaK u, npesge Bcero, nparMaTuHecKue ^.u, K0T0pwe ecTb B3auMOBbirogHbiMu. B o$u^ua.bHbIx npe3em^uax EnC a.bTpyucTuHecKue ^.u BbigBuraroTca Ha nepBbiM n.aH u BK.roHaroT b ce6a: pa3ge. no.b3w ot pacmupeHua EC, hto KacaeTca CTa6u.bHOCTu, 6e30nacH0CTu u 6.arococroaHua, npegynpesgeHue noaB.eHua hobmx .uhuh pa3ge.a Mesgy pacmupeHHbiM Coro3OM u hobmmu cocegaMu; bo3moshoctu, K0T0pwe OTKpbiBaroTca b c.egcTBue yHacTua b pa3Hbix uHu^uaTUBax EC, Hepe3 mupoKoe no.uTuHecKoe, ^K0H0MUHecK0e, Ky.bTypHoe coTpygHuHecTBO b OTpoc.u 6e30nacH0CTu.
Bce-TaKu OHeBugHbiM ecTb to, hto .oruKa EnC 3aK.roHaeTca b se.aHuu Coro3a nogHaTb ypoBeHb co6cTBeHHoM 6e30nacH0CTu, 0C06eHH0 nyTeM y.yHmeHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa c cocegHuMu cra6u.bHbiMu CTpaHaMu, K0T0pwe xopomo agMuHucTpupoBaHue u uMeroT ^K0H0MUKy, hto pa3BuBaeTca.
KpoMe gBycTopoHHux 0TH0meHuM, EnC nepege.aeT BHuMaHue u TpaHcrpaHuHHOMy coTpygHuHecTBy Ha rpaHu^x EC. TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHuHecTBO ecTb yc.OBueM coxpaHeHua CTa6u.bHOCTu u ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pocTa. EBponeMcKuM Coro3 npogBuraeT ^K0H0MUHecK0ro uHTe^pa^uro Ha Bcex TeppuTopuax, Ha K0T0pwe pacnpocTpaHaeTca ero no.uTuKa KaK cpegcTBO He TO.bKO ^K0H0MUHecK0^0 pocTa, a u KaK rapaHTua CTa6u.bHOCTu u 6e30nacH0CTu. ^aHaa opuern^ua EC HaHuHaeTca ot uctokob Coo6^ecraa noc.e BTOpOH MupOBOH BOHHbl.
KaK c.egcTBue, HanpaB.eHue eBponeMcKoro TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa gBoaKoe: npegBuguTca, c ogHoM cropoHbi, ycu.eHue 06MeH0B ^KOHOMuHecKux, Ky.bTypHwx) Mesgy CTpaHaMu EC Ta ux cocegaMu (PyMbiHua - Pecny6.uKa Mo.goBa, YKpauHa, a TaKse Cep6ua), a c gpyroM CTopoHHu, cy^ecTByeT se.aHue peruoHa.bHoM uHTe^pa^uu cocegeM EC.
Hto KacaeTca B0CT0HH0r0 nogxoga EnC, to CBesuM npoeKT B0CT0HH0r0 napTHepcTBa xoTa u He uMeeT r.aBHOH ^.ro peruoHa.bHoro uHTe^pa^uro, ho aB.aerca uHCTpyMeHTOM, c n0M0^bro npegBuguTca oco3HaHHbiM oxBaT npocTpaHCTBa g.a peruoHa.bHoM uHTe^pa^uu.
TpaHcrpaHuHHoe coTpygHuHecTBO no CBoeM npupoge npegBuguT no.yHeHue no.b3bi g.a Tex peru0H0B, K0T0pwe uMeroT npaMyro ^paHu^y c EC, a TaKse g.a npurpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM EC.
EBponeMcKuM uHCTpyMeHT cocegcTBa u napTHepcTBa (EHCn/ENPI) aB.aeTca hobmm ^uHaHCOBHM uHCTpyMeHTOM, c n0M0^bro KOToporo EC OKa3WBaeT noggepsKy Boctohhoh EBpone, rosHOMy KaBKa3y u CTpaHaM rosHoro Cpegu3eMH0M0pba.
HaHuHaa c aHBapa 2007 roga, 6.arogapa pe^opMupoBaHuro uHCTpyMeHTOB noggepsKu EBponeMcKoM komuccuu, nporpaMMbi MEDA, TACIS, a TaKse MHoro gpyrux 6w.u 3aMeHeHw eguHbiM EBponeMcKuM uHCTpyMeHTOM cocegcTBa u napTHepcTBa (EHCn/ENPI). Co3gaHue ^T0^0 uHCTpyMeHTa npegycMaTpuBa.o 6o.ee tu6kuh MexaHu3M, Hepe3 KOTopwM EnC Mor.a 6wTb ^$$eKTUBHee BHegpeHa.
CoBMecraaa o^epa^uoHHaa nporpaMMa «PyMbiHua - YKpauHa - PecnyönuKa MongoBa 2007-2013 r.r.» nonynaeT eBponeücKoe ^uHaHcupoBaHue b nepuog c 2007 no 2013 rog npu nocpegHunecTBe HHcipyMeHTa eBponeücKoro cocegcTBa u napTHepcTBa
(EHCn).
nporpaMMa npegycMaTpuBaeT co3gaHue coeguHUTenbHoro MocTUKa Mesgy TpeMa napTHepcKUMu cTpaHaMu c ^nbro noggepsKu oö^uh npurpaHunHoro peruoHa gna noucKa coBMecTHHx pemeHuü c nogoÖHbix npoöneM, c kotophmu ohh cTanKUBaroTca.
npu nocpegHunecTBe ^T0H nporpaMMbi MecTHbie opraHbi BnacTu u gpyrue op^aHU3a^uu npurpaHunHoro peruoHa 6ygyT noo^peHbi coTpygHunaTb gna MecTHoro ^K0H0MunecK0^0 pa3BUTua, pemeHua HeKoTopbix npoöneM, cBa3aHHbix c oKpysaro^eü cpegoü, a TaKse gna nogroToBKu k npe3BbinaHHbiM cuTya^uaM. nporpaMMa TaKse 6ygeT noggepsuBaTb nynmyro B3auMocBa3b Mesgy oö^uHaMu npurpaHunHbix TeppuTopuü.
OuHaHcupoBaHue EBponeMcKoM komuccuu CoBMecraon 0^epa^u0HH0H nporpaMMbi «PyMbiHua - YKpauHa - PecnyönuKa MongoBa 2007-2013rr.» cocTaBnaeT 126,72 m.h. eBpo (Ha nepuog c 2007 no 2013 rog).
nporpaMMa xapaKTepu3yeTca c^e^u$unecKUMu ^neMeHTaMu, cBa3aHHbiMu c npueMneMbiMH TeppuTopuaMu, npuopuTeTaMu u MeponpuaTuaMu, npueMneMocTbro 3aKa3nuK0B, onpegeneHHbix coBMecraon 0^epa^u0HH0H nporpaMMoü «PyMbiHua - YKpauHa - PecnyönuKa MongoBa 2007-2013 rr.»
PacnpegeneHue oö^ero npueMneMoro 6rogseTa	O6^ue npueMneMoe $HHaHcupoBaHue (m.h. eBpo)	OuHaHcupoBaHue INPI (MnH. eBpo)	Ha^uoHanbHoe $HHaHcupoBaHue (MnH. eBpo)
HToro	137,4	126	11,4
npuopuTeT 1. OopMupoBaHue K0HKypeHT0cn0c00H0H	62,7	57	5,7
^K0H0MUKU Ha npurpaHHHH0H			
TeppuTopuu			
npuopuTeT 2. ^Kono^unecKue bh30bh u	49,5	45	4,5
r0T0BH0cTb K npe3BbinaHHbIM			
cuTya^uaM			
npuopuTeT 3. CoTpygHunecTBo «HenoBeK k	13,2	12	1,2
nenoBeKy»			
TexHunecKoe oöecneneHue	12	12	0
npueMneMHMu 6eHe$u^uapaMu aBnaroTca MecTHbie u peruoHanbHbie opraHH BnacTu, HenpaBUTenbcTBeHHwe op^aHU3a^uu, npegcTaBUTenbcKue acco^ua^uu u op^aHU3a^uu, yHHBepcuTeTw, uccnegoBaTenbcKue uHcTmyTbi, 06pa30BaTenbHbie/MeT0gunecKue op^aHU3a^uu.
Bbi6paHHbie peruoHbi
OcH0BHue peruoHbi
OchobhmM peruoH g.a o^epa^uoHHoM nporpaMMM coctout u3:
•	®yge^0B b PyMMHuu: CynaBa, EoTomaHu, ^ccm, Bac.yM, ^a.a^ u Ty.na
•	OgeccKoM u HepH0Bu^K0M o6.acreM YKpauHM
•	Pecny6.uKu Mo.goBa
flono.HuTe.bHue peruoHbi
BK.roneH0 TaKue HenpurpaHuHHue cocegHue TeppuTopuu, K0T0pue MoryT no.o^uTe.bHo B.uaTb Ha c0TpygHunecTB0 b ^ToM 30He:
•	®yge^ Epau.a b PyMMHuu
•	HBaH0-OpaHK0BcKaa u BuHHu^Kaa o6.acru YKpauHM, a TaK^e gecaTb paMoHoB (BuHbK0Be^KuM, HeMepoBe^KuM, XMe.bHu^KuM, KaMeHe^nogo.bCKuM, HeTuneBcKuM, r^yHaeBe^KuM, ^epa^HaHCKuM, HoBoymu^KuM, ^pM0.uHe^KuM u ropogoKCKuM) b XMe.bHu^KoM u gBeHag^Tb paMoHoB (TepHono.bCKuM, Eepe^aHCKuM, ^og^ae^KuM, Tepe6oB.aHCKuM, MoHacTupuccKuM, TycaraHCKuM, HopTKoBCKuM, Eop^eBCKuM, 3a.e^u^KuM u EynancKuM) b TepHono.bCKoM o6.acrax.
^ono.HuTe.bHue peruoHbi 6ygyT uMeTb gocTyn ko BceM npuopuTeTaM nporpaMMM, ho Ha ^Tux TeppuTopuax MoryT pa3pa6aTMBaTbca u BHegpaTca To.bKo «MarKue» npoeKTM.
Bce BbimeyKa3aHHbie TeppuTopuu Ha3BaHM «Bbi6paHHbiMu peruoHaMu», a ^T0 03HanaeT, hto To.bKo npoeKTM, pa3pa6oTaHHue b ^Tux o6.acrax, MoryT no.ynuTb ^uHaHcupoBaHue ot pa6oneM nporpaMMM.
npaBuTe.bCTBeHHue u HenpaBuTe.bCTBeHHbie op^aHU3a^uu PyMMHuu, Pecny6.uKu Mo.goBa u YKpauHM TaK^e aB.aroTca npueM.eMbiMu b cocTaBe gByx gpyrux nporpaMM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHunecTBa: «BeHrpua - C.oBaKua - PyMMHua - YKpauHa» u CoBMecTHoM o^epa^uoHHoM nporpaMMM «HepHoe Mope».
CoBMecTHaa o^epa^uoHHaa nporpaMMa PyMMHua - YKpauHa - Pecny6.uKa Mo.goBa oxBaTMBaeT Tpu npuopuTeTM u oguH gono.HuTe.bHuM ^.eMeHT - TexHunecKyro noMo^b.
nepBMH npnopHTeT: OopMupoeanue KOHKypeHmocnocoÖHOü ^KOHOMUKU na npmpanuHuou meppumopuu. HMeeT ^.bro y.ynmeHue ^K0H0MUHecK0M cuTya^uu npurpaHuHHbix TeppuTopuM nyreM noggep^Ku guBepcu$uKa^uu u MogepHU3a^uu ^K0H0MUKU.
BTopofi npnopHTeT: ^K0ß0^unecKue eu3oeu u ^0m06H0cmb k npe3eunaÜHUM cumya^HM. HMeeT ^.bro pa3pa6oTKy go.rocpoHHbix pemeHuM ^K0.0^uHecKux npo6.eM, c K0T0puMu CTa.KuBaroTca npurpaHuHHue o6.acTu, 0C06eHH0 Te, K0T0pue CBa3aHM c Hpe3BMHaMHMMu ^K0.0^uHecKUMu cuTya^uaMu, Korga CKoopguHupoBaHHuM nogxog aB.aeTca Hpe3BunaMH0 Ba^HUM.
TpeTHH npnopHTeT: C0TpygHunecTB0 «HenoeeK k nenoeeKy». HMeeT ^.bro cogeMcTBue 6o.bmeMy B3auMogeMcTBuro Me^gy .rogbMu u o6^uHaMu, K0T0pue «uByr b npurpaHuHHbix o6.acrax.
TexHHHecKaa noMü^b. ^.b TexHuHecKoM noMO^u - gocTuHb pea.bHoro u ^$$eKTHBH0^0 Bwno.HeHua nporpaMMH Hepe3 n0gr0T0BKy, M0HuT0puHr, agMuHucTpaTuBHyro u TexHuHecKyro noggep^Ky u o6ecneHeHue 6o.ee mupoKoro yHacTua o6^ecTBeHHocTu.
3a HeTwpe roga pea.u3a^uu nporpaMMH «PyMbiHua-YKpauHa-Pecny6.uKa Mo.goBa» npoBegeHa 3HaHure.bHaa n0gr0T0BuTe.bHaa pa6oTa. Co3gaHH opraHH ynpaB.eHua nporpaMMoM, onpege.eHH u cor.acoBaHbi ^puH^u^H, 3agaHu u npuopureTH nporpaMMH. B uro.e 2009 roga o6baB.eH nepBwM KOHKypc npoeKTOB. npoBegeHH BcTpeHu ^0TeH^Ha.bHbIx napTHepoB. Ho y^e Ha ^ToM cTaguu 6w.u gony^eHH cepbe3Hbie npocHeTH, KOTopwe cy^ecTBeHHO noB.ua.u Ha Bwno.HeHue nporpaMMH. OTge.eHua Eropo TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa b HepHOB^x u Ogecce (YKpauHa) 6w.u co3gaHbi oceHbro 2010 roga Hepe3 noHTu no.Topa roga noc.e o6baB.eHua nepBoro KOHKypca npoeKTOB. Ha 3acegaHuu MoHuTopuHroBoro KOMuTeTa (EyxapecT, geKa6pb 2008 r.) ux OTKpwTue 6w.o 3an.aHup0BaH0 Ha $eBpa.b 2009 roga. C TaKuM «e 3HaHuTe.bHbiM OTcraBaHueM 6w.o yKOMn.eKTOBaHO Eropo TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa b r. CyHaBa (PyMHHua) yKpauHcKuMu MeHeg^epaMu.
^0^T0My KaHecTBO nogroTOBKu u npoBegeHua nepBoro KOHKypca npoeKTOB no nporpaMMe «PyMbiHua-YKpauHa-Pecny6.uKa Mo.goBa» 6w.o HM«e BcaKoM kputuku. Oco6eHHO ^T0 KacaeTca nogroTOBKu MaTepua.OB Ha yKpauHcKOM a3HKe, npoBegeHua ceMuHapoB g.a yKpauHcKux yHacTHuKOB.
C gpyroM cropoHw, ^puH^u^ napTHepcTBa, KOTopwM aB.aeTca ogHuM u3 Ba^HeMmux b pea.u3a^uu TpexcTopoHHeM nporpaMMH, cogeMcTBOBa. pacmupeHuro u uHTeHCu$uKa^uu KOHTaKTOB MecTHbix u peruoHa.bHbix OpraHOB B.acTu, HenpaBuTe.bcTBeHHbix op^aHU3a^uM. ^Tu KOHTaKTH, 6.arogapa nporpaMMe TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa npuo6peTaroT H0B0e cogep^aHua. Co3gaHHwe napTHepcTBa b 6o.bmuHCTBe c.yHaeB uMeroT 3HaHuTe.bHwM ^0TeH^ua. u roTOBH ero ^$$eKTUBH0 ucn0.b30BaTb.
Ha nepBwM KOHKypc 6w.o nogroTOB.eHO u npegcraB.eHO 6o.ee 400 npoeKTOB. MeHeg^epw nporpaMMH, 0gH0CT0p0HHe u M0H0n0.bH0 npegcraB.eHHbie pyMHHCKoM CTopoHoM, npegnpuHa.u TeHgeH^u03H0 u, ogHOBpeMeHHO, nparMaTuHHO nonwTKy ucK.roHuTb u3 KOHKypca nogaB.aro^ee 6o.bmuHCTBO npoeKTOB yKpauHCKux u MO.gaBCKux an.uKaHTOB no agMuHucrpaTuBHHM npu3HaKaM.
OcHOBHaa npuHuHa TaKux geMcTBuM coctout b pa3Hwx nparMaTuHecKux ^.ax crapwx u hobhx H.eHOB EBponeMcKoro Coro3a, 6o.ee u.u MeHee ygaHHO npuKpbiBaeMbix a.bTpyucTuHecKuMu ^.aMu. ^.a crapwx H.eHOB EC — ^uHaHCH (geHbru) EHCn/ENPI. ^e.uKaTHOCTb cuTya^uu coctout b tom, hto geHbru ENPI npegHa3HaHeHbi g.a noggep^Ku CTpaH B0CT0HH0M EBponw, b tom Huc.e YKpauHH u Mo.goBH, a, cooTBeTCTBeHHo, Hepe3 nporpaMMy TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa ux npurpaHuHHwx peruoHOB. ^.a hobhx CTpaH EC npegHa3HaHeHH crpyKTypHbie ^OHgw EC, HegocrynHbie g.a crpaH BoctohhoM EBponw.
no.b3yacb TeM, hto EC nopyHu. agMuHucTpupoBaHue nporpaMMH PyMHHuu, noc.egHaa onupaacb Ha apryMeHTH Ha^u0Ha.bH0^0 ^uHaHcupoBaHua, onwra b pea.u3a^uu npoeKTOB ge.aeT Bce B03M0«H0e u HeB03M0«H0e, hto6h HanpaBuTb geHbru ENPI Ha pa3BuTue CBoux peruoHOB. Mo«eT 6wrb ^T0 u He Koppy^^ua. Mo«eT 6wrb ^T0 TO.bKO Hego6pocoBecTHaa K0HKypeH^ua.
nocne o6pa^eHua paga HenpaßuTenbCTBeHHbix op^aHU3a^uM yKpauHH u Mongoßw b Eproccenb u k cboum npaßuTenbCTßaM c yKa3aHueM Ha HeKoppeKTHwe geMcTBua MeHeg^MeHTa npoeKTa Eropo TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa b r. CyHaßa (PyMHHua) o6paTunocb k annuKaHTaM u napTHepaM 0TKn0HeHHbix npoeKToß c 3anpocaMu Ha npegcTaßneHue gononHuTenbHbix goKyMeHToB. nocne ^T0^0 ohu 6wnu gony^eHH k o^HußaHuro.
B pe3ynbTaTe o^HußaHua npoeKToß TpaHcrpaHuHHoM nporpaMMH «PyMbiHua-yKpauHa-Pecny6nuKa Mongoßa» no TpeTbeMy npuopuTeTy u nogßegeHua uToroß MoHuTopuHroBHM K0MuTeT0M no6eguTenaMu CTanu 46 npoeKToß, cpegu hux 36 pyMHHCKux annuKaHT0B, 4 yKpauHCKux, 6 MongaßCKux. OuHaHcupoßaHue pacnpegenunocb cnegyro^uM 06pa30M: 5,37 m.h. eßpo unu 79 % nonyHunu npoeKTH pyMHHCKux annuKaHToß, 0,54 m.h. eßpo unu 7,9 % yKpauHCKux, 0,9 m.h. eßpo unu 13,1 % MongaßCKux.
nparMaTu3M pyMHHCKoM CTopoHH He BH3WßaeT HapeKaHuM. Bw3HßaeT ygußneHue HaußHocTb u HeganbH0ßugH0CTb MeHeg^epoß u3 Eproccena. He B03HuKaeT unnro3uM b oTHomeHuu uToroß KoHKypca npoeKToß no nepßoMy u BTopoMy npuopuTeTaM nporpaMMH. ycTpaHußmucb ot ynpaßneHua nporpaMMoM TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa «PyMbiHua-yKpauHa-Pecny6nuKa Mongoßa» EC nocraßun nog coMHeHue gocru^eHue nocraßneHHbix ^neM, ^$$eKTUBHoe ucnonb30ßaHue ENPI b TpaHcrpaHuHHoM coTpygHuHecTBe. npu TaK0M cocToaHuu gen nporpaMMH TpaHcrpaHuHHoro coTpygHuHecTBa oKa^yTca maroM Ha3ag no cpaßHeHuro c nporpaMMoM TACIS. A rpaHu^ EC c yKpauHoM u MongoßoM CTaHeT He rpaHu^M 6e30nacH0CTu u pa3ßuTua, a rpaHu^M Hegoßepua u Hec6wßmuxca Hage^g. HuTepaTypa:
1.	Eypaga B., KupnymKo AHgpiem ro. GßponeMcbKuM iHCTpyMeHT cycigcTßa i napTHepcTßa. - Hepmß^: EyKpeK, 2010. - 44 c.; in.
2.	The Mid-Term Review of ENPI Strategy Papers and Indicative Programmes. Information Note for Civil Society Organisations, EC 081024.
3.	REGULATION (EC) No 1638/2006 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.
4.	European Neighbourhood & Partnership Instrument Cross-Border Cooperation Strategy Paper 2007-2013. Indicative Programme 2007-2010, European Commission.
5.	Wider Europe- Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with our Eastern and Southern Neighbours, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM (2003) 104 final, Brussels, 11 March 2003.
Svetlana CIOBANU
director executiv CRDD
BUNE PRACTICI DE COEZIUNE SOCIALÄ IN COOPERAREA TRANSFRONTALIERÄ UNGHENI, REPUBLICA MOLDOVA - IA§I, ROMANIA PRIN IMBUNÄTÄJIREA SERVICIILOR SOCIALE
Cele mai vechi rela^ii de bunä vecinätate ora§ul §i raionul Ungheni le are cu municipiul §i Jude^ul Ia§i din Romania. Ambele pärti au con§tientizat existen^a in regiunea transfrontalierä Ungheni, Republica Moldova -Ia§i, Romania a unui amplu potencial de cooperare reciproc avantajoasä in domenile social, economic, cultural §i ecologic. In acest context se inscriu acordurile de colaborare dintre Consiliul raional Ungheni §i Consiliul Jude^ean Ia§i incheiate §i periodic actualizate pe durata a mai bine de 16 ani, precum §i Strategia de dezvoltare a Euroregiunii Siret - Prut - Nistru din care aceste douä unitä^i teritorial - administrative fac parte. La baza acestor documente stau domeniile de cooperare transfrontalierä identificate, cu largi posibilitä^i de completare §i armonizare.
Ca urmare punerii in aplicare a acordurilor de colaborare amintite mai sus, incepind cu anul 1996 in Ungheni §i Ia§i s-au desfa§urat un §ir de activitä^i cu caracter transfrontalier la care au luat parte reprezentanci ai tuturor actorilor comunitari §i care au cuprins schimburi de experien^ä, conferin^e, expozipi, targuri, misiuni economice etc.
Incepind cu anul 1998, in regiunea Ungheni - Ia§i s-au derulat mai mul^e activitä^i de cooperare in cadrul proiectelor transfrontaliere cu finan^are din partea Comisiei Europene, care au contribuit la instituirea, stimularea §i dezvoltarea unor rela^ii strinse de cooperare intre autoritäre publice locale, societatea civilä §i mediul de afaceri de pe ambele maluri ale riului Prut. S-a constatat cä parteneriatul §i cooperarea transfrontalierä constituie un instrument eficient in armonizarea mecanismelor de func^ionare, de promovare a dezvoltärii in toate sectoarele: administrativ, economic, social, educational, de sänätate, ecologic, cultural. De subliniat, administrate publice locale, societatea civilä §i mediul de afaceri ar putea contribui mai mult la cooperarea reciproc avantajoasä sub toate aspectele, cu efecte imediate sau strategice.
Ca rezultat al coperärii transfrontaliere pe multiple planuri, in regiunile de frontierä Ungheni -Ia§i s-au atins mai multe obiective:
-	s-au stabilit parteneriate active intre localitäti, autoritär publice locale nivel I §i II, institutii, organiza^ii, mediul de afaceri, societatea civilä, cetä^eni;
-	s-au desfa§urat activitä^i de informare privind oportunitä^ile de cooperare transfrontalierä;
-	s-a inlesnit transferul de experien^ä intre parteneri, eliminindu-se unele disfunc^ionalitä^i intre institute publice, societatea civilä §i mediul de afaceri;
-	s-au implementat proiecte transfrontaliere de consolidare a capacitä^ii autoritä^ilor publice locale, societä^ii civile §i mediului de afaceri pentru dezvoltarea durabilä a localitä^ilor §i implicit pentru gestionarea eficientä a treburilor publice;
- s-au implementat programe §i proiecte transfrontaliere de dezvoltare socio-economicä §i de mediu.
Intrucit fmbunatafirea accesului la serviciile sociale a fost identificatä ca obiectiv major comun penrtru regiunea Ungheni - Ia§i, unul din cele mai importante domenii de cooperare sa dovedit a fi cea pe domeniul social. Astfel intre autoritäre publice locale, societatea civilä §i mediul de afaceri din regiune Ia§i s-au ini^iat parteneriate in derularea de proiecte §i programe pentru:
■	prevenirea marginalizärii sociale
■	gäsirea de solu^ii de reintegrare a diverselor categorii de cetä^eni: familii cu mul^i copii, familii mono-parentale, virstnici, tineri, femei, persoane cu disabilitä^i
In contextul imbunätä^iri accesului la serviciile sociale, Asocia^ia Zona Metropolitanä Ia§i, Primäriile Ia§i, Boto§ani, Gala^i - Romänia in parteneriat cu Primäriile Ungheni, Nisporeni, Hince§ti, Cahul - Republica Moldova au implementat in cadrul Programului PHARE CBC -UE Romania - Republica Moldova 2004-2006 un proiect de succes - Social Work for Better Life.
La baza cooperäri transfrontaliere in cadrul acestui proiect a stat iniciativa §i dorin^a comunitä^ilor aflate la frontierä de a obline servicii sociale calitative §i eficiente pentru o via^ä mai bunä. Problema necesitä^ii imbunätä^irii serviciilor de asisten^ä socialä in regiunea de frontierä Romania - Republica Moldova a fost indentificatä in urma unor sondaje de opinie efectuate in comunitä^ile partenere intr-un proiect transfrontalier implementat anterior L.G.U. WEALTH NETWORK (Rejeaua APL de cooperare transfrontaliera L.G.U ) derulat in cadrul Programului PHARE CBC - UE Romania - Republica Moldova 2004-2006. Obiectivul general al proiectului social l-a constituit otyinerea coeziunii sociale pentru comunitaple din regiunea transfrontaliera Romänia -Republica Moldova prin imbunataprea §i activarea sistemului descentralizarii serviciilor sociale §i sistemului protecpei sociale pentru facilitarea accesului la aceste servicii §i promovarea incluziunii sociale. Pentru atingerea acestui obiectiv major au fost formulate trei obiective specifice:
-	modernizarea procesului de descentralizare a serviciilor de asistenca socialä §i sistemul de protecpe sociala §i implementarea bunelor practici;
-	corelarea curriculei §i sistemului de trainig cu nevoile furnizorilor de servicii sociale, in special cei publici;
-	crearea unui profil al grupurilor asistate, al furnizorilor de servicii sociale §i al sistemului de protecpe la nivel local
Studiul privind dezvoltarea comunitapi §i descentralizarea serviciilor de asistenca sociala efectuat a eviden^iat imaginea realä a nivelului educa^iei oferite de furnizorii de servicii sociale din regiune §i ca urmare au putut fi identificate cele mai indicate mecanisme §i instrumente pentru dezvoltarea serviciilor sociale.
Printre cele mai importante rezultate ale cooperärii transfrontaliere in cadrul acestui proiect se inscriu:
-	au fost create grupurile pentru dezbaterea problemelor privind dezvoltarea comunitarä §i descentralizarea serviciilor de asisten^ä socialä;
-	alcätuitä o baza de date cu furnizorii de servicii de asisten^ä socialä;
-	creatä pagini web pe site-urile partenerilor dedicatä informa^iilor despre schimbärile produse in rezultatul activitä^ilor desfä§urate;
-	construite parteneriatele publice - private stabilite in sfera serviciilor sociale;
- elaborate douä instrumente in sprijinul dezvoltärii serviciilor sociale in comunitate (Ghidul pentru dezvoltare comunitara §i descentralizarea serviciilor de asistenca sociala §i Manualul pentru speciali§tii administrafiei publice m domeniul serviciilor sociale).
Spre exemplu, grupurile de dezbatere create au desfa§urat mai multe discu^ii asupra modelului descentralizärii serviciilor sociale §i de protec^ie la Iasi §i Ungheni precum §i asupra corelärii curriculei universitare cu nevoile serviciilor sociale §i furnizorilor de servicii sociale. Un rol important l-au avut aceste grupuri §i la organizarea dezbaterilor asupra implicärii autoritärer publice locale §i regionale, cetä^enilor §i mediului de afaceri in parteneriate publice - private pentru servicii sociale mai bune in localitä^ile partenere.
Ghidul pentru dezvoltare comunitara §i descentralizarea serviciilor de asistenca sociala a prezintat principiile care stau la baza descentralizärii serviciilor de asisten^ä socialä, instrumente §i tehnici de evaluare a nevoilor din comunitate, de facilitare comunitarä apreciativä §i de contractare a serviciilor sociale. Un capitol aparte al ghidului il cuprinde modelele de bune practici privind serviciile sociale alternative.
Manualul pentru speciali§tii administrafiei publice m domeniul serviciilor sociale a oferit informal privind competence asistentului social in administra^ia publicä, mäsuri de ameliorare a situa^iei persoanelor aflate in dificultate precum §i aspecte din legisla^ia de specialitate.
O primä mäsura identificatä §i consideratä principalä este reorganizarea §i dezvoltarea
infrastructurii de asistenca sociala. In regiune este nevoie de identificarea §i dezvoltarea unui sistem de asisten^ä socialä care sä furnizeze servicii sociale moderne, sä promoveze incluziunea socialä §i sä contribuie la reducerea säräciei din randurile cetä^enilor. Acest lucru impune reformarea actualului sistem §i construirea unor structuri regionale de asisten^ä socialä, capabile sä furnizeze §i sä gestioneze serviciile sociale, intr-un cadru de consultare efectivä a beneficiarilor §i a comunitä^ilor locale.
In domeniul social, ca §i in alte domenii, este mai important, mai eficient §i mai ieftin sä previi apari^ia fenomenelor §i a cazurilor sociale decat sä le rezolvi. Pentru o asemenea ac^iune preventivä s-a propus crearea unei regele de asisten^ä socialä la nivelul localitä^ilor, ceea ce presupune o armonizare a abordärilor din partea administra^iei publice §i a societä^ii civile locale, o dezvoltare §i incurajare a ini^iativelor care favorizeazä implicarea comunitä^ii in rezolvarea problemelor sociale.
Obiectivul general constä in proiectarea unei game largi de servicii §i prestali sociale, accesibile, de calitate §i adaptabile nevoilor individuale ale beneficiarului care sä previnä, sä limiteze, sä combatä situa^iile de marginalizare socialä, sä recupereze §i sä reintegreze social persoanele aflate in situa^ii de risc. Pentru aceasta a fost propunuse unele modele de asistenca socialä, echilibrate §i echitabile cu un management eficient, in care beneficiarul / poten^ialul beneficiar se va afla in centrul sistemului. Modelele de asisten^ä socialä se pot desfa§ura cu respectarea unor norme de calitate stabilite pentru serviciile sociale, cu respectarea obligatorie a criteriilor preväzute de reglementärile in vigoare.
Serviciile sociale previzionate trebuie furnizate in parteneriat de cätre to^i factorii implica^i, atat publici cat §i privabi §i se bazeazä pe evaluarea nevoilor personale, sunt orientate cätre sus^inerea individului §i integrarea acestuia in cadrul comunitä^ii.
Potrivit legilor asistenci sociale, administra^ia localä poate organiza servicii comunitare (sociale §i medico-sociale) adresate persoanelor defavorizate, partial le poate finan^a sau subven^iona, monitoriza §i evalua potrivit unor standarde de calitate stabilite.
O nouä direc^ie strategicä a sistemului de asisten^ä socialä ar putea contribui la transformarea regiunii transfrontaliere intr-o regiune dinamicä, care sä ofere la standarde europene educate, siguran^ä, condi^ii decente de locuire, oportunitä^i egale de afirmare §i realizare profesionalä pentru copii, tineri §i adul^i, astfel incat fiecare cetä^ean sä-§i atingä poten^ialul säu maxim §i sä contribuie in mod efectiv la dezvoltarea §i promovarea culturii specifice zonei. Prioritä^ile care s-au stabilit la nivelul regiunii in acest domeniu sunt urmätoarele:
•	persoanele cu disabilitä^i
•	persoanele varstnice
•	copii §i familii aflate in dificultate
•	tineri §i familii aflate in dificultate
Pentru imbunätä^irea calitä^ii vie^ii persoanelor cu dizabilitäfi din regiune s-au stabilit obiective specifice:
■	infiin^area de servicii comunitare alternative (case de tip familial, locuin^e protejate, adäposturi temporare, centre de crizä, centre de zi, centre de consiliere, cluburi, centre de terapie §i recuperare) pentru persoanele cu disabilitä^i cit §i incadrarea cu personal de specialitate potrivit tipului de serviciu oferit;
■	accesibilizarea mediului fizic conform termenelor stabilite de legisla^ia in vigoare.
Aspectul tehnic pentru atingerea acestor obiective prevede continuarea procesului de evaluare a persoanelor calitä^ii serviciilor oferite. In acest context, este indicatä restructurarea institu^iilor clasice reziden^iale §i infiin^area de servicii comunitare alternative (de tip reziden^ial §i nereziden^ial). Standardele de calitate impun reorganizarea serviciilor sociale.
Pentru integrarea cit mai bunä a persoanelor cu disabilitä^i in societate, trebuie asiguratä §i accesibilizarea mediului fizic.
Activitäple propuse m domeniu:
■	infiin^area de alternative de tip reziden^ial (adäposturi temporare, centre de tranzit, centre de crizä, locuin^e protejate, case de tip familial);
■	infiin^area de alternative de tip nereziden^ial (centre de zi, centre de consiliere, cluburi, centre de terapie §i recuperare);
■	montarea §i amenajarea telefoanelor publice conform actelor normative in domeniu;
■	amenajarea locurilor de parcare pentru persoanele cu disabilitä^i;
■	adaptarea clädirilor institu^iilor publice, ale celor culturale, sportive sau de petrecere a timpului liber, magazinelor §i restaurantelor, sediilor prestatorilor de servicii cätre populate, precum §i a cäilor publice de acces;
■	montarea sistemelor de semnalizare sonorä §i vizualä pentru persoanele cu disabilitä^i la trecerile de pietoni, precum §i a panourilor de afi§aj in mijloacele de transport public §i pe sträzile ora§ului;
■	achizi^ionarea mijloacelor de transport special adaptate pentru accesul neingrädit al persoanelor cu disabilitä^i.
Pentru imbunätä^irea calitä^ii vie^ii persoanelor värstnice aflate in dificultate din regiune au fost formulate urmätoarele obiective specifice:
■	reducerea numärului de locuri din centrele de tip reziden^ial, astfel incat acestea sä corespundä din punct de vedere al calitä^ii serviciilor oferite standardelor impuse de legisla^ia in vigoare §i celor impuse de UE;
■	modernizarea noilor centre pentru persoanele varstnice (recompartimentarea lor, remobilarea, renovarea, dotarea lor cu aparate tehnice §i medicale necesare unei bune
desfa§uräri a activitä^ii), astfel incat sä corespundä standardelor impuse de legisla^ia in vigoare §i de cele impuse de UE.
Reie§ind din situa^ia nevoilor persoanelor varstnice din regiune §i a resurselor existente s-a
observat cä nevoile persoanelor varstnice nu pot fi satisfacute datoritä lipsei fondurilor la
nivel local, a unui numär incä foarte mic de organiza^ii neguvernamentale care presteazä
servicii de asisten^ä socialä specializate in protec^ia persoanelor varstnice.
Luand in considerare situa^iile statistice, s-a propus organizarea, infiin^area §i func^ionarea de
servicii de asisten^ä socio-medicalä pentru persoanele varstnice pentru ca nevoile acestei
categorii sociale vulnerabile sä fie satisfäcute intr-un mod cat mai eficient §i care sä ofere
servicii calitative in conformitate cu standardele impuse de legisla^ia in vigoare.
Atat in stabilirea obiectivelor pe termen scurt cat §i a celor pe termen lung trebuie luatä in
considerare situa^ia persoanelor varstnice (numärul lor, starea lor materialä, starea de sänätate,
numärul persoanelor varstnice imobilizate la pat, etc. ) din regiune.
S-au identificat urmätoarele prioritä^i in func^ie de nevoile care existä in regiune:
■	numärul persoanelor varstnice (persoanelor care au implinit varsta standard de pensionare);
■	numärul persoanelor varstnice, care datoritä stärii lor fizice sau materiale nu se pot ingriji singure §i au nevoie de protec^ie specialä;
■	ponderea pe care o ocupä numärul persoanelor varstnice din totalul numärului de locuitori;
■	ponderea pe care o ocupä numärul de persoane varstnice care, datoritä stärii lor fizice sau materiale nu se pot ingriji §i intre^ine singure, din totalul numärului de locuitori.
Pentru imbunätä^irea calitä^ii vie^ii copii, trineri, femei aflafi in fdificultate din regiune au fost formulate urmätoarele obiective specifice:
■	sprijinirea autoritärer locale in vederea preluärii de cätre acestea a serviciilor locale de protec^ie a copilului ( centre de zi, de consiliere) §i a infiin^ärii altor servicii in sprijinul familiei §i al copilului;
■	infiin^area unor adäposturi de protec^ie a persoanelor victime ale violen^ei domestice unde pe langä consiliere socialä, psihologicä §i juridicä, victimele sä poatä fi extrase temporar din mediul familial violent §i reintegrate din punct de vedere social;
■	infiin^area de centre maternale §i a celor de zi;
■	imbunätä^irea calitä^ii vie^ii copiilor aflafi in dificultate prin crearea de case familiale §i transferul copiilor la asistenci maternali profesioni§ti sau in centre de plasament de tip familial §i adop^ie.
Cel mai vulnerabil segment al acestei categorii de tineri este cel al tinerilor care au crescut in centrele de plasament, ace§tia, fiind lipsi^i de un mediu optim de dezvoltare individualä, au §anse minime de reintegrare socialä §i profesionalä, comparativ cu copiii care au träit aläturi de pärin^ii lor. Ace§tia intampinä greutä^i in procesul de integrare socialä §i profesionalä din cauza deprinderilor insu§ite in perioada de institu^ionalizare (tending de izolare, probleme afective,). In momentul cand implinesc 18 ani §i sunt nevoi^i sä päräseascä centrele unde au crescut, integrarea lor in societate este posibilä doar dupä o perioadä de pregätire in scopul integrärii sociale. Cea mai mare problemä cu care se confruntä ace§ti tineri nu se regäse§te in refuzul societä^ii de a-i accepta, ci in incapacitatea lor de a se adapta societä^ii.
In vederea reinser^iei sociale §i profesionale a acestei categorii de tineri se impune implementarea unor programe de infiin^are a unor "centre de tranzit" destinate tinerilor care
päräsesc serviciile de protectie a minorilor §i care, din cauza deprinderilor insu§ite in aceste centre, intämpinä dificultäti in integrarea lor socio-profesionalä. Ca exemplu poate servi Centrul CREDO din ora§ul Ungheni, destinat reintegrärii socio-profesionale a tinerilor din categoria susmentionatä care are ca specific de activitate evaluarea, preluarea, ingrijirea, formarea §i socializarea tinerilor pentru o perioadä determinatä (maxim un an), astfel incät, in urma acestei perioade de consiliere psihologicä §i socialä, tinerii sä fie apti sä se integreze in societate färä a mai intämpina dificultäti, dar acesta dupä faza de experiment va avea nevoie de un suport substantial pentru mentinere §i extindere.
Accentuarea fenomenului de violentä domesticä, alcoolism, consum de droguri, insotitä de o cre§tere a numärului de victime, implicä in mod imperios crearea unui mediu de protectie socialä pentru aceastä categorie vulnerabilä. De cele mai multe ori, se impune extragerea temporarä din mediul familial violent, fapt imposibil de realizat in absenta unui adäpost. Este nevoie de infiintarea unor adäposturi de protectie a persoanelor victime ale violentei domestice, unde pe längä consiliere socialä, psihologicä §i juridicä, victimele sä poatä fi extrase temporar din mediul familial violent §i reintegrate din punct de vedere social.
A doua mäsura importantä vizeazä imbunätätirea §i extinderea sistemului de servicii sociale. Pentru aceasta au fost formulate urmätoarele obiective specifice:
■	cre§terea implicärii administratiei §i a sectorului neguvernamental in apärarea drepturilor grupurilor dezavantajate §i intärirea rolului acestora in acordarea de servicii sociale;
■	asigurarea egalitätii §anselor §i a integrärii sociale a tinerilor, femeilor §i persoanelor cu nevoi speciale;
■	infiintarea §i desfä§urarea de servicii de consiliere destinate familiilor aflate in situatii de risc, asigurarea de adäpost, hranä, asistentä medicalä pentru aceastä categorie de persoane;
■	dezvoltarea de noi servicii de ingrijire la domiciliu pentru persoanele värstnice;
■	imbunätätirea standardelor de calitate a serviciilor oferite de institutiile §i serviciile alternative pentru protectia persoanelor värstnice.
Din analiza realizatä in baza studiului efectuat in regiune §i a actiunilor de promovare a incluziunii sociale asupra situatiei existente rezultä o amplificare a fenomenului säräciei. Procesul de säräcire a majoritätii populatiei s-a produs atät prin erodarea veniturilor §i degradarea acumulärilor, dar §i prin cre§terea aspiratiilor de consum datoritä contactului cu viata mondialä §i cu societätile occidentale. Dintre multiplele modalitäti de manifestare a säräciei, excluziunea socialä este procesul cu efectele sociale cele mai negative datoritä paralizärii capacitätii de redresare.
Aceastä mäsurä intentioneazä sä impulsioneze §i sä dezvolte cadrul institutional al autoritätilor publice locale pentru a oferi servicii sociale direct sau a actiona in parteneriat cu alti agenti, organizatii publice, private sau non - profit.
Activitätile din cadrul acestei mäsuri sunt menite sä ducä la diversificarea, extinderea §i cre§terea calitätii serviciilor sociale oferite de autoritätile locale, organisme guvernamentale §i neguvernamentale astfel incät sä poatä beneficia de acestea un numär cät mai mare de persoane aflate in situatii care necesitä interventia serviciilor sociale specializate. Se urmäre§te promovarea participärii persoanelor excluse social la viata culturalä §i socialä a comunitätii; incurajarea lor in asumarea responsabilitätii comunitare; acordarea de asistentä socialä §i servicii persoanelor aflate in dificultate. Activitäple recomandate m domeniu:
■	reabilitarea /amenajarea §i dotarea unor centre de zi pentru copii §i bäträni;
■	amenajarea §i dotarea de centre sociale multifunctional;
■	organizarea de cursuri de formare pentru persoane apar^inänd grupurilor dezavantajate (§omeri de lungä duratä, §omeri peste 45 de ani cu probleme economice §i sociale deosebite) §i aplicarea de mäsuri active de ocupare specifice acestor categorii (consiliere, job -club, etc.).
Sunt de remarcat §i practicile de succes care vizeazä serviciile sociale individualizate de chinetoterapie, logoterapie, terapie ocupa^ionalä, asisten^ä psihologicä prestate de Centrul de servicii comunitare Casa pentru Top din ora§ul Ungheni, Moldova §i serviciile de consiliere, recreere, recuperare, sisten^ä sanitarä prestate de Centrul de Reabilitare Infantilä Penilla din municipiul Ia§i, Romänia, ca un bun rezultat al cooperärii in acest proiect social.
Dumitru Drumea
Regional Centre for Strategic Environmental Studies "ECOS"
Republic of Moldova e-mail: drumead25@yahoo.com
INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EU WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IN EU NON-ACCESSION COUNTRIES IN THE CONTEXT OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION.
Introduction
Since adoption of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) in December 2000, cooperation between EU and non-EU countries in its implementation is based on a very strong political and public commitment in non-EU neighbor countries to implement integrated water resources management principles. Main tool for the implementation of the Directive is Integrated River Basin Management plan developing for Dnester and Prut rivers in cooperation with neighboring EU member state (Romania) and non-EU countries - Moldova and Ukraine. As the practices for involvement of local authorities in implementation of the EU WFD have evolved region differences in objectives, approach, styles etc have also emerged. This tends to be rooted in the past histories in the water management practices, different legal and institutional arrangements for river basin management. The goal of this paper is to foster an appreciation of involvement of local authorities in development of plans for cathment management, cooperation between authorities and identify issues they consider necessary for water planning.
Presented article is based on the results of the discussions with local authorities during the consultation meetings for identification of main water management issues related to implementation of the EU WFD in Prut and Dnester river basins. Main challenges for implementation of the provisions of the Water Framework and other EU Directives were identified as follows:
1.	Development of institutional, legislative and normative arrangements for improvement of the water management practices in non-EU space
2.	Cooperation of local authorities with relevant national, regional and international stakeholders for improvement of water management practices in such domains as drinking water supply, waste water treatment, sanitation, environmental protection etc)
3.	Large involvement of public institutions and NGOs in preparing of the Integrated river basin management plan for the Prut and Dnester river basins and Program of measures for its implementation during years 2009-2015
For the achieving of the institutional, legislative and normative aspects for the development of the Integrated River Basin Management Plan next measures have been proposed during consultation meetings with local authorities:
-	Coordination of water activities with local authorities, especially in the development of national and regional projects like "Rural tourism", "Drinking water supply" etc
-	Efficient involvement of local authorities in implementation of the provisions of Integrated River Management Plan as a tool for application of the WFD in non-EU space (border with EU) and cooperation with the river basin councils, which creation is presumed in the WFD.
-	Rising of the capacities of local authorities in efficient use of financial, human and other resources accumulated in the region and attracted from different international and regional funds
-	Fund rising for development of the water related activities (drinking water supply network, waste water treatment, etc) in the respective regions
-	Harmonization of local development plans (infrastructure, economical development, social; aspects, etc) with provisions of the Integrated River Basin Management Plan and sustainable use of water resources, including of the technical projects in the Program of Measures
-	Cooperation of local with central authorities in the development of legislative acts, standards etc for development of water infrastructure
-	Clear sharing of responsibilities among sectoral local authorities in the relevant regions in the field of water management
-	Attraction of local business community in the development of the water networks (drinking water supply, waste water treatment, sanitation of settlements, etc) with economical estimations and research in the field of economical studies of different aspects of water use and management.
-	Development of the local political infrastructure for extension of water services in different domains of economy and social life
-	Assuring of gender equity in planning and implementation process for development of the system of water management
According to the results of discussions with local authorities next research activities should be undertaken for improvement of the water management practices in Moldova:
-	Precising of the hydrological situation on rivers: flows, levels, high water regime, siltation of the water bodies and artificial lakes
-	Inventory of pollution sources and level of pollution, identification and quantitative estimations of the agricultural, industrial, municipal, etc hot-spots for identified river basins
-	Evaluation of the impact from different pollution sources and pollutants, organizing of permanent monitoring on waste water releases, theirs' quality and quantity, especially from sugar and cannery plants
-	Inventory of the ground water resources from quantitative and qualitative points. Development of proposals for conservation of abandoned boreholes and interconnection between surface and ground waters.
-	Testing of new methodologies for utilization of the wastewaters and solid wastes from agricultural, industrial and municipal sectors including out off data dumps. Development of the biogas network especially in rural areas
-	Development of methodology for evaluation of diffuse sources of pollution and calculation of loads reaching water ecosystems, modeling of the pollution water quality and quantity in the Dnester and Prut river basins
-	Identification of the reference conditions in the river basins, identification of the heavily modified water bodies, designing of relevant monitoring programs for water quality and quantity
-	Analysis of financial resources and mechanisms needed for the implementation of the best water practices and costs for different types of water use (drinking, industrial, agricultural, fisheries, etc)
-	Estimation of hydropower, navigation (lower part of the Prut and Dnester rivers), recreation, fishery etc potentials of water ecosystems
-	Development of educational programs for Universities and schools, development of tool box on implementation of the plans and best water practices
-	Evaluation of economical aspects of the water supply and commitment of local population to pay for different types of water services
-	Economical studies in regard to water management planning (irrigation, tourism, drinking, industrial etc)
European Union Water Framework Directive presumes creation of the River Basin Councils. Local authorities proposed next issues in order to assure effective cooperation between local authorities and basin councils:
-	Identification of main functions of local authorities, which could contribute to the activities of the river basin councils and development of the reciprocal (local authorities and river basin councils) information exchange system
-	Harmonization of local development plans with the provisions of the WFD, creation of common groups (local authorities, experts and river basin councils) for implementation of plans in relevant region
-	Involvement of local authorities and experts in the implementation of the Integrated River Basin Management Plan on relevant territory, organizing of annual conferences of local authorities, experts, NGOs with the Basin Council
-	Cooperation of local authorities and experts on regional level (transboundary cooperation, neighboring regions etc) with the Basin Councils
-	Logistical and transparency assurance of Basin Councils activities in the region
-	Cooperation in development of the nature protected zones network and control on the implementation of the legislation on protected areas
-	Facilitation of the development of local conventions for cooperation between local authorities and river basin councils
-	Active involvement of local authorities and experts in elaboration of programs for implementation of the Integrated River Basin Management Plans and possible co-financing of the implementation of certain activities
-	Development of the alarm emergency system and involvement in the development of the ad-hoc measures. Launching of the working groups near local authorities for supporting of Basin Councils activities.
Regional local authorities outlined necessity in preparatory work for development of the Integrated River Basin management plan. Another issue outlined by them was preparing in cooperation with authorities from river basin countries, of main tasks and responsibilities for the activities of the river basin councils, which have to be developed in cooperation with central, local authorities and NGOs (Moldova, Romania and Ukraine). Development of recommendations and their implementation needs elaboration of agreed tools, mechanisms, creation of relevant institutional structure in all countries. All these issues should also be presented in the integrated river basin management plan.
Reflections and implications.
The lessons learned from consultation meetings highlighted recent developments in commitment to strength institutional arrangements for capacity building in river basin management. One of the most important, they demonstrated different ways that scientific process is not enough incorporated in integrated water resources management as well as regional cooperation in this domain. Both Prut and Dnester rivers examples illustrate urgent necessity in development and implementation of management plans for their basins and insufficient relevant experience in this domain on local level.
Consultation meetings also pointed to the conclusion that river basin management projects should incorporate a scientific process of stating different methodologies at all stages of plans implementation are likely to be more effective and efficient in a long term perspective (2010 -2015). Consultation meetings approach is capable of identifying the most effective opportunities for involvement of local authorities in river basin management and planning. These opportunities will inevitably be better to adapt to changing environmental conditions or societal expectations.
References:
1.	Workshop on the Application of the EC Water Framework Directive in the Danube Basin, Munich, 2000
2.	Water Framework Directive, European Commission, Brussels, 2000
3.	National Strategy for Sustainable Development in Moldova, UNDP, Chisinau, 2001
4.	Parliament Decision on adoption of National concept of the policy in the field of water management, Official Monitor of the Republic of Moldova, Nr 191-195 from 5 09.2003
5.	Action Plan Moldova - EU, Chisinau, 2005
Veaceslav Gufufui,
Deputy Minister
Ministry of Construction and Regional development of the Republic of Moldova
EXPERIENCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA IN CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION PROJECTS
Abstract
This article addresses a new and current area of international relation of the Republic of Moldova- cross-border cooperation and associated projects with it. The article is structured to provide answer to questions about benefits and opportunities of cross-border cooperation; funding mechanisms, problems concerning cross-border cooperation and projects implementation, necessary steps to improve project implementation and harnessing the allocated resources in this purpose.
General Overview
Republic of Moldova is a state situate in south-Eastern Europe between two large European countries - Romania (west) and Ukraine (east). The border with Romania is almost entirely on the Prut river and a very short distance of the Danube. Republic of Moldova has outlet to the Black Sea (through access of the Danube river on a strip of 600 m at its southern end). With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Republic of Moldova became an independent state on august 27th and member of United Nations.
Republic of Moldova has made considerable efforts to establish international relations by adhering to the most important political and economical international bodies and organizations, and by signing bilateral agreements with different countries. The territory of the country is 33,846 km2. The population estimated in 2008 - is about 3,424 million (with Transnistria 4,26 million). Approximate 45% of them live in urban areas. Capital Chisinau has over 750.000 residents. The population of the neighbor states (Ukraine and Romania) exceeds 17 times that of the Republic of Moldova.
Being a small country, with limited natural resources, Republic of Moldova can't develop its economy than joining the European and global economic structures. Most districts of the country are located near the border of one or both countries, and this explains the eligibility of the entire Moldavian territory (including Transnistria) in the program of cross-border cooperation promoted by the European Union in this area.
In Republic of Moldova, the mechanism of cross-border cooperation in various forms works efficiently, their advantages are undeniable:
1.	boost of the economic and trade relations between partner states;
2.	promoting cultural, artistic, scientific exchanges, the contacts between persons and human collectivities, cooperation in the environmental field;
3.	ensure quick and efficient systems of communications and transport, development of cross-border relations in various fields.
Current situation of the cross-border region doesn't represent the amount of the problems which have the parties, but the multiplication of the opportunities that were lacking by border separation. So, although the main socio-economic performance and of infrastructure are modest on both sides of Prut river, the value of the natural resources and those cultural-
historical open new cross-border cooperation opportunities in the environmental, cultural, tourism, small manufacturing industry, trade field etc.
Border cooperation activities in Euroregions are supported by a range the trilateral and bilateral agreements, treaties and protocols between Republic of Moldova, Romania, Ukraine as well as bilateral agreements between local authorities (regional) in the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Ukraine.
At once with the political and socio-economic changes the cooperation has intensified, based on the following factors:
•	Local and regional experience, NGOs from Moldova in developing and managing joint border projects with partners like Ukraine and Romania.
•	Border areas are uniform in terms of language, tradition, customs community.
•	The current Government willingness to integrate into the European space and actions carried out throughout September 2009 to August 2010.
•	Favorable geographical position between East and West geopolitical interests.
•	Access to EU funds through the three programs for which RM is eligible.
Republic of Moldova participation within Euroregions
Creating Lower Danube, Upper Prut and Siret-Prut-Nistru euroregion is important tools to enhance border cooperation in various areas between administrative-territorial units of Moldova's border with similar structures in Romania and Ukraine. Although they were constituted at a difference of three and respectively four years, the three regions have achievements in creating the organizational framework and implementation of large cooperation projects. Lower Danube Euroregion
Functions based on the Convention signed on August 14, 1998. Lower Danube Euroregion Council Presidency, Governing Body of the Euroregion, is owned by Galati County Council for a period of two years (December 2009 - December 2011).
Under the agreement establishing, Lower Danube Euroregion has the following members:
•	Republic of Moldova - Cahul and Cantemir districts
•	Romania - Galati, Braila and Tulcea districts
•	Ukraine - Odessa region
Population - 4 mil. persons. Territory-53,3 thousand km.p
The main purpose of setting up the Lower Danube Euroregion is to promote cross-border cooperation in the Lower Danube basin region.
Areas of cooperation as part of Euroregion are: ecology; economic relation; infrastructure works; demographic; social; natural disasters and crime combating.
Financing activity is ensured by the parties in equal shares. Financial resources needed to function the Euroregion are provided by the local government or their own or taken from other sources. The amounts allocated are kept in special accounts. Budget execution is controlled by the Audit Commission.
Lower Danube Euroregion is one of the most active forms of cooperation.
Upper Prut Euroregion
The idea of founding has been entered, the Romanian side's initiative. On September 22, 2000, was signed in Botosani, Agreement establishing the "Upper Prut" Euroregion. "Upper Prut" Euroregion has the following members:
•	Romania - Botosani and Suceava districts
•	Republic of Moldova - mun. Balti, Briceni, Edinet, Riscani,Glodeni, Falesti, Singerei, Donduseni, Ocnita districts
•	Ukraine - Cernauti region
Population - 2.9 ml persons. Territory- 28,9 000km2.
The main purpose of establishment is to expand existing links and to promote the development of cross-borders cooperation of the territorial-administrative units States, for to ensure sustainable development of the region within the overall European integration process.
Areas of cooperation as part of Euroregion are: economic relations; cross-border infrastructure development; ecological security and environmental protection; science, education and trening, culture and sports, relations between NGOs; public health care and tourism development.
For Euro-financing activity, Euroregion Council adopted annually decision, under which each member of Euroregion provides local budget expenditures amounting to 5000 USD. For financing specific projects and programs from different sources Euroregion members create special funds.
Siret-Prut-Nistru Euroregion
Following a joint initiative of the respective County Councils of Romania and Republic of Moldova, on September 18, 2002 in Iasi, was signed the Euroregion Siret-Prut-Nistru Protocol of the cross-border cooperation. Euroregion constitution was meant to accelerate the process of transformation of these two states, Romania and Moldova in partner countries through their cooperation with border regions of EU or Central and South-East and mission to achieve a high level of development and implementation of EU funding programs.
Siret-Prut-Nistru Euroregion has the following members:
•	2 county from Romania - Iasi and Vaslui
•	18 districts from Republic of Moldova - Anenii Noi, Basarabeasca, Calarasi, Cinislia, Criuleni, Dubasari, Floresti, Hincesti, Leova, Nisporeni, Orhei, Rezina, Soroca, Straseni, Soldanesti, Telenesti and Ungheni.
Population -2.8 ml persons. Territory - 26,4 th. km2
Areas of cooperation as part of Euroregion are: economic relation; cross-border infrastructure development; relations between NGOs; education and training; culture and sports; public health care and tourism development; science
Financial resources needed function the Euroregion are provided by the parties in equal shares by the local budget or another own sources or taken. Euroregion budget consists of: dues, sponsorships, donations, publicity contracts etc.
Cross-border projects involving the Republic of Moldova
Cross-border projects have great importance and impact on local communities in the border area. Until now, in the Republic of Moldova have been implemented many such projects. Therefore we can say that there is some experience and institutional memory in this respect. Donors were different in the size and the manner of funding to address issues of data - local authorities of level I and II, Government, European Unions' programs, Soros Foundation, UNDP, World Bank etc.
Thus, in the terms of how they approach, the projects can be divided into two broad categories:
1)	Software, primarily aimed to strengthen human capacity in the public administration, business associations and, taking the best practices in various areas of public interest, increase transparency and public information, improving administrative management, computerization of public services etc.
2)	Hard - focus on projects aimed to improve physical infrastructure through the construction, reparation, refurbishment and modernization, reconstruction of the different objectives of social and economic development.
Depending on the size, cross-border projects are divided into three types:
1)	Small - up to 200 thousand euro, that provides local authorities to resolve problems with local and regional cross-border impact.
2)	Middle - from 200 thousand to 1mln.euro, projects that have a strong regional impact.
3)	Large - over 1 million euro, which have a regional and national impact, preponderant focused on major problems, such as: improving the physical infrastructure of strategic importance (water/sewer systems, electricity and gas, roads, that allow connection between 2 or 3 countries, prevention systems of emergency situations in the border area, reconstruction of border crossing points in Unghnei, Giurgiulesti).
In table 1 are given some examples of cross-border projects with the participation of various institutions of the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. These projects have been focused on cross-border problems, having different approaches in their implementation. This was due to the specific application guidelines, program funding and initiatives, partnerships between applicant and project partners.
Table 1. Cross-border projects with the participation of institutions and authorities of
the Republic o		f Moldova			
#	Project Title	Applicant	Partners	Year	Programme, BudgetEuro
1	Development of tourist routes in the cross-border area Nisporeni-Prut	District Council Nisporeni	District Council Hancesti County Council Iasi, Vaslui ADTM, NisAgroinform	2008-2010	PEV MR 293.428
2	Care and Support Centre for solitary elderly persons "Home"	District Council Soroca	Centrul „Impreuna" v. Giurcani LC Gagesti, Vaslui	2008-2010	PEV MR 300.000
3	Cross-border cultural activity -the premise of sustainable cooperation	District Council Stefan-Voda	Local Council Festelita, Bucecea, Botosani, Perieni, Vaslui District Council Causeni	2008 -2009	PEV MR 325.860
4	Household waste management in Leova city	CL Leova	County Council Iasi BCI	2007	TACIS TCAS 185,856
5	NGO participation in a representative democracy	CED Timisoara	INRECO Cross Border Cooperation Agency Renee	2006-2007	32 400
6	Strengthening cross-border cooperation in the Euroregion "Lower Danube"	INRECO	CCI Galati Fund for Supporting Entrepreneurship of Ismail	2006	Soros Fund, 42 000
7	Preventing human trafficking	Leova District Council	InReCo	2006	CE 59,142
8	Creation and strengthening the Department of Cross Border Cooperation within Leova Mayoralty	RDA Leova	Local Council Leova, BCI	2004	TACIS CBC 58,467
9	Strengthening Capacity of Cahul Regional Development Agency	Cahul County Council	County Council Galati, BCI	2003	TACIS CBC 58,467
Source: made by author based on information collected from the institutions applied to projects.
European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument 2007-2013 for which RM is eligible
Since 2007 the EU launched a series of CBC programs in the new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) 2007-2013. Moldova is eligible for participation in the following border and Trans national cooperation programs funded by under European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument:
1.	South Eastern Europe Trans national Cooperation Programme 2007-2013
2.	Joint Operational Programme Romania-Ukraine-Moldova 2007-2013
3.	Joint Operational Programme for Black Sea Basin 2007-2013.
1.	The South Eastern Europe Trans national Cooperation Programme 2007-2013
The program covers 16 countries in Southeast Europe in different legal relations with the EU:
•	Three Member States: Austria, Greece and Italy
•	Five new Member States: Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia
•	A state candidate: Croatia
•	A state with candidate status with which were not started negotiations: former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
•	Four potential candidate countries: Albania, Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia
•	Two countries with which EU has special relations: Moldova and Ukraine
Overall objective of the program: Creating partnerships in areas of strategic importance with a view to improve territorial integration, economic, social and contribute to cohesion, stability and competitiveness.
Program Budget: ERDF budget is only for member states over a period of seven years and is 206.7 million Euro. Project submitted by Moldovan partners will be funded by ENPI Interregional Programme. For the participation of Moldovan and Ukraine partners to the first and second auction, activities will be covered by the ERDF worth up to 10% of the project budget.
Eligible beneficiaries: public institutions and equivalent structures (Ministries, County Councils, Local Councils, NGOs, Regional Development Agencies, other agencies and authorities, associations, universities, research institutions etc.) Priorities and measures:
>	Facilitating innovation and entrepreneurship: development of technological and innovation networks; developing an environment for innovative entrepreneurship; improving the framework conditions and opening the way for innovation.
>	Environmental protection and improvement: improving integrated water management and flood risk prevention; improving prevention of natural hazards; promoting cooperation in management of protected areas; promoting renewable energy and resource efficiency.
>	Improved accessibility: improvement planning in primary and secondary transportation networks; developing the mitigation strategy of "digital divide"; improving framework conditions for multi-modal platforms.
>	Developing sustainable growth areas: approach crucial problems affecting metropolitan areas and regional settlement systems; promote a balanced pattern of areas with potential in terms of their accessibility and attractiveness; promoting the use of cultural development
2.	The Joint Operational Programme Romania-Ukraine-Moldova 2007-2013
This program receives funding in 2007-2013 through the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. The program aims to create a bridge between the three partner states, with the support of communities in border areas to find common solutions to similar problems that they face.
The eligibility area of the program is:
•	Romania: Botosani, Galati, Iasi, Tulcea and Vaslui districts.
•	Republic of Moldova: whole territory.
•	Ukraine: Odesa and Cernauti regions.
Programme's objectives:
1.	Stimulating the development potential of the border area.
2.	Improving socio-economic situation and the environment.
The total budget for the three participating countries is shared 126 million euros for a period of seven years. Participating states in the program must provide 10% of funding, at project level. The value of a project can vary between 30.000 and 3.000.000 Euro.
Eligible beneficiaries: local and regional authorities, NGOs, chambers of commerce, universities, research institutions, educational organizations, associations and representative organization.
Priorities and measures:
>	Priority 1: Towards a more competitive border economy: improving the productivity and competitiveness of the region's urban and rural areas by working across borders, cross-border initiatives in transport, border infrastructure and energy.
>	Priority 2: Environment Challenges and Emergency Preparedness: addressing strategic cross-border environmental challenges including emergency preparedness; water supply, sewerage and waste management
>	Priority 3: People to People Co-operation: local and regional governance, support to civil society and local communities; educational, social and cultural exchanges.
3. The Joint Operational Programme for Black Sea Basin 2007-2013
Program area consists of the following regions: some regions of Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and whole territory of Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The program's overall objective is to support sustainable economic and social development in the Black Sea Basin regions, based on solid regional partnerships and close cooperation.
The total budget of program is 18.862.000 EURO (17.035.000 EURO ENPI and 1.557.000 EURO national co-financing). Participating states in the program must provide 10% of funding, at project level. Funding is reimbursable, competitively awarded, in the context of public calls for project proposals.
Eligible beneficiaries: regional and local authorities, development agencies, environment and tourism, chambers of commerce, NGOs, educational and cultural institutions.
Priorities and measures:
>	Priority 1: Supporting cross border partnerships for economic and social development based on common resources
•	Measure 1.1:Strengthening accessibility and connectivity for new intraregional information, communication, transport and trade links
•	Measure 1.2: Creation of tourism networks in order to promote joint tourism development initiatives and traditional products
• Measure 1.3: Creation of administrative capacity for the design and implementation of local development policies
>	Priority 2: Sharing resources and competencies for environmental protection and conservation: Measure 2.1: Strengthening the joint knowledge and information base needed to address common challenges in the environmental protection of river and maritime systems; Measure 2.2: Promoting research, innovation and awareness in the field of conservation and environmental protection for protected natural areas; Measure 2.3: Promotion of cooperation initiatives aimed at innovation in technologies and management of solid waste and wastewater management systems
>	Priority 3: Supporting cultural and educational networks for the establishment of a common cultural environment in the Basin: Measure 3.1: Promoting cultural networking and educational exchange in the Black Sea Basin communities.
Problems and challenges of cross-border cooperation
Cross-border cooperation with the participation of administrative-territorial units of the Republic of Moldova faces with a number of problems and difficulties:
•	Lack of local financial resources for co-financing projects.
•	Low capacity of local governments in development and management of cross-border projects.
•	Low level of concrete results from initiatives Euroregions. In this chapter we can say that members of Euroregions don't involve practically in their initiatives.
•	Limited experience in the development of partnerships between NGOs, LPA and business sector.
•	Low level of concrete results of Euroregion's initiatives
•	Lack of an efficient integrated system for surveillance and environmental factors.
•	Aging and decreasing population trend (migration due to economic situation) leads to hinder economic development and promotion of traditional culture.
•	SME sector and underdeveloped services. It is important that SMEs should be encouraged and supported by programs and public authorities where possible the development, particularly through trade and cross-border cooperation.
•	Low levels of GDP and income causes low dynamic of local markets and that, increasing global competition threatens traditional markets.
•	Lack of motorways connecting the border zones. Promoting a sustainable transport system that will facilitate the transport safely, fast and efficient for people and goods with a level of services to European standards, at national, European level, between and within regions.
•	Low access to energy resources in many rural areas. Need for imported electricity is much more acute in Moldova, which is a major importer of electricity. An example of cross-border cooperation is building of pipeline between Cernivtsy and Siret.
•	Lack of effective integrated monitoring of environmental factors. Border cooperation should be intensified at all levels for conservation and environmental protection, including prevention of natural hazards (floods, erosion) and technological (air and water pollution, chemical spills etc.) and develop join activities of response in emergency situation.
Border cooperation opportunities
Through cross-border cooperation programs, Romanians, Ukrainians and Moldovans will be motivated to develop new business contacts to exchange information and benefit from new facilities of accessibility to the border. They will be motivated to cooperate in case of
flooding, protecting natural resources and tourism development. Thus, border areas will be more attractive to people who live and work here and for foreign investors.
The border cooperation opportunities are:
>	Euroregions may have a principal role in developing regional plans or strategies in the cross border region
>	Cities must have an important role in the development process
>	Potential of SMEs operating in the tourism sector should be exploited and developed
>	Universities in border area can create necessary prerequisites for future networks to stimulate innovation and research
>	EU funds available to address road, railways and border crossings infrastructure
>	Increased interest in cross-border cooperation on common environmental problems issues including emergency preparedness.
Development of cross-border cooperation through projects
In order to resolve problems and build upon opportunities that are offered in the future it is necessary to act in the following areas:
•	Elaboration of common development strategies and strategic projects in each Euroregion.
•	Organization of forums, exchanges and seminars for raising the overall development level of NGOs and the LPA, fundraising.
•	Joining forces of non-profit organizations and building coalitions for developing cross-border cooperation.
•	Create a database of potential partners and create a system of exchange.
•	Create a common information system (in each Euroregion) including information on all non-profit organizations, announcements on competition for grants, informational resources, project results and so on.
•	Development and implementation of clusters (network and industrial groups) within the info-analytical and training services.
•	Development of tourism infrastructure, strengthening of interaction between its separate elements.
•	Harmonization of legislation in countries-part of the Euroregion ( especially customs law, simplifying procedures for issuing visas)
•	Implementation of duplicate channels in the system of issuing visas.
•	Informing the public about the work of customs officers, customs regulations and tariffs.
•	Establishment of informational system to obtain information on customs regulations, tariffs, rules of crossing the border in the online mode.
•	Organizing public information on customs checkpoints in Euroregions' spoken languages.
Conclusions
Cross border cooperation is a complex area of public policy interventions that is based on implementation of various initiatives and projects. The success of cross-border projects depends on different factors: 1) evolution of Moldova's relationship with the European Union; 2) the initiatives launched by the authorities and other social actors in project implementation; 3) the extent and capacity of public authorities and NGOs in harnessing resources for projects implementation.
Bibliography
1.	Framework Convention on cross border cooperation between territorial communities or authorities in Madrid 21.05.1980.
2.	Applicant's Guide, Joint Operational Programme Romania - Ukraine - Moldova 20042013.
3.	Law on Regional Development of Moldova Nr. 438 of 28.12.2006 // OG nr. 21-24 of 16.02.2007.
4.	Economic and social development strategy of Siret-Prut-Nistru Euroregion 2009-2014
5.	Gu^ui, V.; Miron, V.; Miron, M; Cimbir, C. Strategy for economic development and attracting investments in Nisporeni, 2009-2012.-Chi§inäu: "Cu Drag" SRL, 2009. -92 p.
Dr. Ph. Corneliu Gutu
Vice-Rector for Scientific Activity and Foreign Relations Academy of Economic Studies of Moldova
THE IMPACT OF THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CROSS-BORDER
COOPERATION
The present article studies the issues of increasing the competitiveness of specific countries within the context of the regional European integration. Effective solutions to this problem are the cluster type structures that ensure the sustainable development of the border regions in neighboring countries. Furthermore it discusses the issues of the interrelationship between the development of the cluster type structures and the increase of the global competitiveness index, as well as the management of the innovational environment under the European Neighborhood Policy.
Key words: cross-border cooperation, competitiveness, cluster formations, innovational environment, innovational process.
European Neighborhood Policy is a new approach of the European Union (EU) towards bordering countries having as a goal the strengthening of their relations in order to create a prosperous region at EU borders. Furthermore this policy aims at offering EU neighboring countries, Republic of Moldova being one of them, the possibility of a closer economic cooperation with EU and its closest neighbors. Taking into consideration Moldova's strategic objective towards the integration into European economic and political space, the European Neighborhood Policy is fundamentally important in the conceptual plan of our country, as it offers the possibility to use various European tools in order to achieve a sustainable regional development.
During the last decade, international practice shows that the clusters - groups of interdependent companies, functioning in the same area and working in related fields - have an increasing role in ensuring the country's or region's economic competitiveness. A more accurate definition of a cluster and its influence on competitiveness is given by Professor Michael Porter, a well-known authority in the field of management - "a geographic concentration of interconnected companies of specialized suppliers, services providers, firms working in related fields, and institutions associated with them (for example, universities, standards agencies, trade associations), that compete, and cooperate at the same time, in the same area of activity" [2].
In its economic essence, the cluster is a regional association of companies that complement each other. In the EU, the cluster policy is being successfully conducted for more then two decades, due to the significant funding and support from the state. Furthermore the clusters have become an integral part of the regional policy in the United States, China and other countries. As international experience shows, the businesses united into a single cluster system are capable of fast economic growth, leadership in the domestic and foreign markets, creation of new jobs with high added value and rapid technological progress. Typically, the business-based clusters, particularly in the EU, are transnational corporations that have extensive economic relations. At the same time, the core of the cluster integration can be
formed by national corporations, as it can be noticed in mechanical engineering and garment clusters in Italy.
Going beyond the national economic space, the clusters ensure an economic cooperation between two or a group of countries on a qualitatively new level. In the globalization context, appears the necessity of forming clusters on the basis of domestic as well as on cross-country economic business models. Therefore, the formation of cluster groups in the border regions of several countries expands the area of economic cooperation, as the target database can be created in one or several countries, and such a cluster could include businesspersons from other regions and countries.
Summarizing the international experience, it can be noted that in contrast to classical forms of economic interaction, the cluster type structures in the border regions of individual countries is generally characterized by the following features:
•	The presence of one or several companies - the leaders (from one or other neighboring countries) who determine the long-term joint management, innovational and other strategies for the entire economic system in the border area;
•	Territorial localization of the bulk of the companies (businesspersons) - members of the cluster system;
•	Sustainability of the strategic foreign economic relations within the frames of the cluster-type structures, including their cross-country and international relations;
•	The long-term coordination of foreign relations and the cooperation of the participants in the cluster type structures within the frames of national and regional development programs, investment projects and innovation processes;
•	The existence of joint business projects and horizontal integration, etc.
Based on the experience of the Eastern and Central European countries, it can be concluded that the development of the cross-border cluster-type structures in the border regions determined the increase in the overall level of national competitiveness and the transition from the economic development stage based on factor driven economies to the stage of efficiency driven and innovation-driven economies.
The economic science has as an urgent task the identification of the competitiveness level in individual countries. As a national partner of the World Economic Forum (WEF), we conducted a comprehensive study in order to determine the competitiveness level of the Republic of Moldova using the WEF method and the Global Competitiveness Index calculation.
WEF defines the national competitiveness as the ability of a country and its institutions to ensure sustainable economic growth, which would be stable in the mid terms. The existing studies show that the countries with high rate of national competitiveness, as a rule, provide a higher lever of prosperity for its citizens. The main indicator - the Global Competitiveness Index is composed of 113 variables that describe in detail the competitiveness level of countries at different stages of economic development. The statistics from the public sources as well as expert opinions (surveys of the top managers of the national companies) are the informational basis for the index calculations. All variables are grouped into 12 benchmarks which determine the national competitiveness:
1.	Institutions
2.	Infrastructure
3.	Macroeconomic environment
4.	Health and primary education
5.	Higher education and training
6.	Goods market efficiency
7.	Labor market efficiency
8.	Financial market development
9.	Technological readiness
10.	Market size
11.	Business sophistication
12.	Innovation.
13.
According to WEF information, Switzerland was on the top of the 2010-2011 ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report, which took the first place in the last year's ranking as well (Table 1); followed by Sweden and Singapore, the second and third places, respectively.
Table 1: The Global Competitiveness Index 2010-2011 rankings and 2007-2008 comparisons
	The Global Competitiveness Index 2010-2011		The Global Competitiveness Index 2007-2008	Rank differences
	Rank	Score	Rank	H3MeHeHHe
Switzerland	1	5,63	2	+ 1
Sweden	2	5,56	4	+ 2
Singapore	3	5,48	7	+ 4
United States	4	5,43	1	- 3
Germany	5	5,39	5	0
Japan	6	5,37	8	+ 2
Finland	7	5,37	6	- 1
Netherland	8	5,33	10	+ 2
Denmark	9	5,32	3	- 6
Canada	10	5.30	13	+ 3
				
Romania	67	4,16	74	+ 7
				
Ukraine	89	3,90	73	- 16
				
R. Moldova	94	3,86	97	+ 3
Source: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011
In the recent years United States fell three places and now occupy the fourth rank. This change of positions for the United States is due to the weakening of the financial markets and the reduction of their macroeconomic stability and, consequently, the weakening of public and private institutions. Germany, which is now considered to be "the locomotive of the European area"occupies the fifth position; followed by Japan (6th Rank), Finland (7), Netherlands (8) and Denmark (9). Canada closes the top ten leading countries list. It has to be noted that EU most developed countries continue to dominate the first half of the ranking among the most competitive economies.
In 2010, Republic of Moldova modestly occupies the 94th place out of 139 countries in the WEF ranking. Nevertheless, the data in Table 1 indicates that the global economic crises had no appreciable effect on the position of the Republic of Moldova in the WEF ranking, as in 2010 the country has slightly improved its position in comparison with the year of 2007. It has to be noted that in 2010 Romania occupies the 67* position and Ukraine the 89th according to their competitiveness level. The nearest neighbors of the Republic of Moldova in
the WEF list are Georgia (93 Rank) and Jamaica (95 Rank). Among the CIS countries Moldova is on the last places in the list, only ahead of Armenia (98 Rank), Tajikistan (116 Rank) and Kyrgyzstan (121 Rank).
Let's note that the competitiveness of the Republic of Moldova continues to deteriorate in the key area of "good market efficiency". Under this indicator the country ranks 104 out of 139 possible positions, while Romania is on 76 Rank and Ukraine is on 129 Rank. In our opinion, this is largely determined by the inefficiency of the ongoing anti-monopoly policy and the burden of customs procedures.
As the studies show, the following factors affect the competitiveness in a negative way: "quality of roads" (139 Rank), "production process sophistication" (126 Rank), "university-industry collaboration in R&D" (125 Rank), "judicial independence" (130 Rank), "intellectual property protection" (118 rank), "efficiency of the legal framework in challenging regulations" (111 rank), insufficient warranty of "property rights" protection (119 rank), and during the past year these figures deteriorated. Furthermore, the Republic of Moldova was among the outsiders on the following competitiveness criteria: "financial market development" (103 rank), «affordability of financial services» (128 rank), «venture capital availability» (127 Rank), «country credit rating» (117). All the above mentioned problems stop the Republic of Moldova from stepping up and using its competitive advantages, such as relatively low level of "inflation" (17 rank), «government debt» (19 rank), «total tax rate» (32 rank), «time required to start a business» (34 rank) and «pay and productivity» (41 rank).
Figure 1: Global Competitiveness Index and Cluster Development
5,5
2	5,0
E £
J" 4,5
4> >
Q 4,0 S
4—'
3
5 3,5 o
O)
re 3,0 v>
4—'
re
O
o v»
2,5
2,0
		♦ Japan Canada * Finland	
			▼ ▼ ueniidiry ^ Netherlands Denmark
	Franco Czech Republic ♦		
JlUvt 111! ^ Slovac Republic ♦ ♦			
ukramc iatuia 1	Estonia ■iuneary Poland ♦		
♦ ♦♦ ♦ Lithuania , , Romania R. Moldova ♦ i			i
3,8
4,3	4,8	5,3
Score of Global Competitiveness Index 2010
5,8
Source: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011
Figure 1 shows the identified interrelationship trends between the reached competitiveness levels and cluster development for individual EU countries and those within the European Neighborhood Policy. So, in terms of cluster development, the Republic of Moldova occupies the 135th place, while our cross-borders cooperation partners occupy the 113 place (Romania) and 106 place (Ukraine). The best cluster development indicators, among Eastern European countries, were reached by Slovenia (49) and Czech Republic (41).
In our opinion, with respect to the Republic of Moldova, the establishment of cross-border cluster type structures involving Romanian and Ukrainian industrial companies will not only enhance the overall competitiveness of the entire national economy, but it will also open up new prospects for cross-border cooperation. The clustering of regional economy, as well as the appearance of cluster type structures in the border regions, in the Euro region of "Lower Danube" and "Upper Prut" will give the opportunity to solve the economic development as well as social development problems, including the reduction of poverty in the border regions. The main goal of the regional policy in the border regions of the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine should be the creation of the necessary conditions for a sustainable development and enhancement of the regional competitiveness through the formation of cluster-type structures and the development of the cross-border networking. Taking into consideration the actual conditions, the specifics of the Republic of Moldova cluster policy consists of the need for institutional, organizational and economic support of cluster cooperation, taking into account the factors of competitive advantage.
On the basis of the cluster development concept the following principles of formation of cluster policy in the border regions can be defined:
•	Multi-levelness of the cluster policy which should be implemented at various levels of government: national, regional, cross-border and micro levels;
•	Economic stimulation of cluster-type structures (the state policy should be oriented towards the indirect methods of supporting the cross-border cooperation, rather than directly subsidizing the selected industries and enterprises);
•	Support of promising innovative cluster-type structures (appropriately use the economic incentives, such as: loans, grants and other to support the promising clusters);
•	Organizational encouragement of cluster-type structures (the government should help create the necessary conditions for the development of the networking cooperation and the public-private partnership).
Based on the study of the international experience in the implementation of cluster systems, we can determine the feasibility of establishing regional cluster-type structures in the border regions of the Republic of Moldova. This is closely related to the following terms and preconditions:
•	In the face of fierce international competition, world business leaders are seeking new mechanisms in order to improve the strategic effectiveness for territorial development. Thus the clusters are a joint organizational form of consolidation of stakeholders' efforts directed at an effective use of the competitive advantages of the regional economy in the context of the increasing of the globalization economic processes.
•	Due to the limited budgetary support, the field of regulatory impact of the public authorities on the economy of the border regions of the Republic of Moldova is quite limited, and therefore the need for international integrating structures that will contribute to the dynamic interaction of local and foreign parties of business processes. The clusters allow the regional government agencies to optimally adjust the direction of the socio-economic development of territories, predict and correct the tendencies of regional development with the help of the coordination of the interested parties' efforts.
•	For the businesses that are active in the sphere of foreign economic relations, the barriers to entering new segments of the world goods and services market can be substantially reduced through the standardization and harmonization of the requirements within the frames of a cluster-type structure, considering the possibility of using the effect of the international scope to start the innovation and investment
activities with the participation of foreign capital (modern international technologies, mobility and human resources training, communication networks, etc.)
•	The basis for the formation of cluster-type structures can be consisted of a pragmatic approach, implemented through the European integration programs or through special programs for the development of territories, and which consolidate the interests of national and European business, etc.
•	Within the frames of the globalization of the world economy, the Republic of Moldova receives, as part of cross-border cluster-type structures, the access to modern management systems, advanced techniques and modern technology, promising international goods and services markets, as well as new information and knowledge.
At this point it is necessary to emphasize the importance of the realization of national companies of the possibility to use the cluster development strategies within their own strategies. The central and local authorities have to bring to their attention the potential dangers and opportunities, as well as to support the initiatives in this field. Furthermore they are to assist in the elimination of administrative and trade barriers to cross-border cooperation by providing consulting services, as well as disseminating best practices in the formation and functioning of cluster-type industrial-innovative entities.
In the last decades, the foreign experts tend to strengthen their point of view that regions, that have territories with clusters, become leaders of national economies and their external economic relations, and the territories that have no clusters, fade into the background and often lack the most important indicators of socio-economic development. Analyzing the international practice and the sectoral structure of the Republic of Moldova, it is possible to identify some key trends in the development of borer regions, which will soon have the possibility of creation of cross-border cluster-type entities with the participation of foreign partners from Romania and Ukraine. Particularly, among the priority sectors are: garment industry, wood processing and the production and assembling of furniture; wine and food industry; communications and transport sectors; mechanical engineering, information technologies.
At the same time, for a better sectoral and territorial binding of cluster structures to the regional economy, the Republic of Moldova will need an integrated system of stimulation, taking into account the local needs of specific industries, of the country's large, medium and small enterprises depending on their foreign economic relations levels.
On one hand, in the Republic of Moldova, there are several factors that may contribute or impede the development cross-border cluster-type entities. The positive results of implementing the cluster approach to regional development should include: the expansion of the technological, scientific and information infrastructure; the willingness of private businesses to cooperation; the mobility in the use of local resources; the improvement of the sustainability of interregional ties; the strengthening of the foreign economic cooperation partnerships and several others.
On the other hand, the inhibiting factors in the development of cluster-type entities, in the Republic of Moldova, are the following: inadequate quality control systems of the joint businesses in certain sectors; the low development level of cross-border cooperative structures, which mostly cannot independently cope with the task of developing and implementing the priorities for the promotion of the economic potential of cross-border cooperation; lack of programmed solutions to territorial economic development; the large time intervals till the first tangible economic results, as the real benefits from the creation of cross-border cluster-type structures can only be felt after 5 to 10 years, etc. Everything that was mentioned above calls for increased attention towards the trans-boundary systems controlling the interregional and international relations, as the successful implementation of programs to build and promote special cluster structures is only possible if
there is a regional development strategy. As international experience shows, the formation f an international cluster in isolation from the regional development strategy as a whole is inefficient and often impossible. The current world economic development shows that, at the basis of the clusters, there should be a consensus among national and foreign businesses, as well as with the regional administrations of the countries involved in the promotion of cluster-type entities.
The peculiarity of the initial stage of the formation and development of cluster-type structures in the Republic of Moldova is that, for their formation, it is necessary to establish a formal institutional structure that will coordinate the international development of cluster-type structures, and which is created with the direct participation of the Republic of Moldova enterprises and foreign firms.
The principles of the management of the cluster structures require openness and trust in business from the parties involved in order to achieve a successful joint action. The use of the cluster approach also implies a long-term planning of joint business activities as well as the implementation of the strategic forecasting. However, at present time the Republic of Moldova may have some problems in the development of cluster-type structures, specifically at the coordination of private and group business interests. Thus, the development of cluster-type structures in the cross-border regions as a whole and its individual elements must be performed under a general economic systems organization. However, the local public administrations should make full use of the complex international territorial business and, for its part, contribute to the creation of joint companies that will be the integration center of the cluster-type entity.
It is also assumed that the cluster-type structures will compete among themselves, both within the Republic of Moldova and in the international space, for investments for the possibility of creating the most effective and long-term business in its territory. Because of this, in the absence of the necessary resources a lot of effort will be aimed at consolidating its position in the international market segments. An association of stakeholder in cross-border territorial clusters can greatly optimize the costs and improve the productivity of their business activities. The introduction of the cluster approach allows a much more effective foreign economic cooperation. The most important thing is that cross-border territorial clusters provide the opportunity to implement joint businesses in cross-border regions, help them develop according to international cooperative strategies based on national interests, and not by intuition or by inertia.
The international experience shows that only the gathering of groups of industrial enterprises into cluster-type structures makes them operate successfully in the global competition. Currently, the large multinational companies prefer to invest in those countries and regions where clusters in specific industries already exist or at least have the prerequisites for their formation. In its economic basis, we can expect that the formation of cross-border cluster-type structures in the Republic of Moldova will attract foreign investments from large, as well as medium and small sized communities of investors, who by their nature are more mobile and flexible in terms of investment. This unification of the foreign capital and resources creates potential strategic opportunities to raise the status of the Republic of Moldova in the world markets through the cluster-type structures and, consequently, increase its participation in the international labor division.
In conclusion it has to be emphasized that, for the Republic of Moldova, the formation of individual cluster-type structures covering the territories of neighboring countries, Romania and Ukraine, could become the business model with a different organizational structure and methods of economic management. The cross-border cluster-type structures could significantly contribute to the revival of some depressed regions of the Republic of Moldova, which include small towns where unstable industries are located, as well as a significant part
of rural settlements where a few agricultural enterprises operate and constitute the backbone of their economy; and furthermore mitigate the regional inequality and the socio-economic disparities between the regions. It can be assumed that, in terms of accelerating the European integration of the Republic of Moldova the establishment of cross-border cluster-type structures offers the opportunity to integrate the national economy into the EU and the global economy on more favorable terms, due to the dynamic rise of the entire regional economy and competitiveness.
References:
1.	World Economic Forum. 2010. The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011. Geneva: World Economic Forum. - 501 p.
2.	Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press
RECOMMENDATION ON EU - BELARUS, MOLDOVA, RUSSIA AND UKRAINE CROSS - BORDER COOPERATION IMPROVEMENTS
On 26 - 27 November 2010 was held in Chisinau, Moldova the "International Expert Meeting (EM) on developing cross-border cooperation / neighbourhood programmes between the EU and Eastern European Partnership countries and Russia'' in the frame of the BRIDGE Project (2008 - 2012), which is being co-financed by the European Commission, Europe Aid. The Coordinator of the BRIDGE Project is ISCOMET-Institute for Ethnic and Regional Studies from Maribor, Slovenia. Experts from EU and four partner countries took part at the Conference.
After thorough considerations of the Conference's topics the participants adopted the following recommendations:
1. EU organs and agencies are invited to consider the following proposals and suggestions:
•	to further elaborate the cross-border cooperation in the future ENP and Eastern Partnership (EP) programmes as an important tool for the achievement of the aims of these policies and especially for creating an area of stability, peace, sustainable development and overwhelming social and economic progress on the EU external borders;
•	to increase - in accordance with the above mentioned assessment - the share of the financial means subscribed to cross-border and territorial cooperation in the next financing period, probably 2014 - 2020;
•	to continue with the endeavours for diminishing the negative consequences of the Schengen border regime management and of the existing visa system, which is a serious obstacle for the people to people programmes and for the development of cross-border cooperation in particular;
•	to avoid the fragmentation of the EU CBC policy and the influence of historical reminiscences on the managing and execution of the programmes;
•	to consider by the European Commission the initiation and promotion of joint meetings of the
•	monitoring committees of the on-going ENPI CBC programs (2007-2013), for the purpose of improving the overall programs management and of avoiding mistakes and excluding potential problems;
•	to ensure the equal position of regional and local communities from the ENP and EP partner countries respectively in the managing and decision making in the Euro regions along the EU external border;
•	to explore in accordance with para. 16 of the preamble of Regulation EC No. 1082/2006 the ways and means for including the territorial entities from Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine in the revision of the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation -EGTC and to include the proposals in the report of the European Commission to the European Parliament and the European Council, which is foreseen for August 2011.
fl I bridge
lOOS-2012
2.	The EU organs and agencies and the governments of the EU and ENP partner countries are invited to consider the following proposals and suggestions:
•	to improve a system of the EU spatial planning in order to include the border regions of Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine;
•	to include in the instruments of cross-border cooperation elements which will develop the ethnic identity of national minorities living on both sides of the border and thus mitigating their problems, eliminating the historical reminiscences and creating an atmosphere of friendship among neighbouring nations;
•	to include in the EU Tempus, Erasmus Mundus, Jean Monnet, Marie Curie, Leonardo da Vinci and research programs priorities that are important for education and training of people and for researching issues related to the development of ENP and EP respectively and CBC in particular;
•	to create and support the joint business info networks and institutions of innovation economy, which would serve for exchange of information, realisation of common business ideas and transfer of knowledge;
•	to support the creation of cross-border networks and associations of local and regional authorities and NGOs as well of the EU and EP countries and Russia;
•	to foster harmonization of legislation of the EU member and eastern partners states concerning the realisation of ENPI CBC;
•	to adopt adequate measures and invest efforts for enforcing peaceful resolution of disputes, in accordance with the potential of existing EU-rules on mediation in disputes, which is a pre-condition for successful development of cross-border cooperation.
3.	The governments of Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine are invited to consider the following proposals and suggestions:
•	to ensure an equilibrated regional development through specific regional approaches in order to avoid the increase of social and economic differences, caused also by greater capability of more developed regions to use the EU funds;
•	to build up an adequate legal framework - in the context of decentralisation - which will provide regional / local authorities with competencies regarding CBC;
•	to consider and accelerate procedures for accession to the 3rd Protocol to the Madrid Convention of 2009 on establishment of European Cooperation Groupings (ECGs);
•	to consider the accession of Russia and Belarus into the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region of 2009.
The participants requested the BRIDGE Coordinator, Prof.Dr.Silvo Devetak and the BRIDGE Vice Coordinator, Ass.Prof.Dr. Olesea Sirbu, who was the organiser of the EM in Chisinau, to distribute this Recommendation to the EU agencies, adequate governmental bodies of the EU member states and of BRIDGE partner countries and to the managing structures of EU supported programmes on fostering effective cross-border and territorial cooperation between EU and Belarus, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine. This Recommendation was adopted in both working languages of the EM - English and Russian.
Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, 27 November 2010