The signing and ratification of the long-awaited 30km visa-free zone between Norway and Russia in November of this year is an important and historic step in visa-free travel in Europe writ large. It signals that the EU can, afterall, be flexible about the parameters of what the Schengen Acquis is, and that there is indeed room for maneuver in redefining the rigidity of the Schengen border.
The ratification and eventual application of the grenseboerbevis is one small, yet very significant step to breaking down the borders between the EU and Schengen signatories and its neighbourhood. Never more urgent than now is the opening of EU and Schengen borders to visa-free travel.
There is much to be done in the wider Europe. For example, one bright day last October, while crossing from a non-Schengen to a Schengen sector, we (appropriately a busload of participants of a Border Dialogues conference in Uzhgorod, Ukraine and Kosice, Slovakia) had to wait for over 5 hours to have our documents verified 4 times by the Ukrainian and Slovak border authorities. In effect, it took us over 5 hours to travel a distance of 100kms. But we were the lucky ones. For others, especially truck drivers ferrying goods from Ukraine to Slovakia and into the EU, the wait at the border could last as long as 5 days or more. For those of us who live in the Schengen zone and can cross freely across borders within the EU without checks, it was a stark reminder of a past when borders were physical manifestations of state authority. It was a border-crossing exercise that residents of third country non-Schengen signatories live on a daily basis. And it was a strong illustration as to why border controls in Europe should be streamlined better or eliminated altogether.
Certainly, here at the border between Norway and Russia at Storskog, such waits are possible but rare. However, measures suggests that Storskog crossings over the first 8 months of 2010 already show an increase of 20% from the total crossings in 2009. Clearly third-country states (Russia being one) are at a disadvantage: advancement in trade and economic development suffer, people to people contact is limited, knowledge and student exchange is curtailed, cultural co-operation is underdeveloped, family relationships are strained, and capacity-building is frustrated. While it is clear that these problems are aggravated when crossing borders between Schengen and non-Schengen zones, the process of eliminating problems of border-crossings will take great political will on the part of the EU and the third country non-signatories to the Schengen Acquis.
In the meantime, there are ways in which border crossings and exchange across borders may be facilitated. Ratification of the grenseboerbevis (a 30km visa-free zone between Sør Varanger and Pechenga) is one solution. While the Norwegian-Russian border example may not be applicable to all border regions in Europe, there are clear best practice solutions that give valuable insights as to how cross-border relations may be further advanced and how relations across borders can become ones based on mutual understanding and common goals.
To policy-makers in the EU, Norway, and to national governments of Schengen and non-Schengen signatories, practices that are recommended are that:
1) the local-level interests, desires, and needs of those living in the border regions must set the agenda for the kinds of cross-border co-operation and relationships that are promoted by the EU, Norway, and third country governments;
2) the facilitation of cross-border relationships must have the political support from the policy- and decision-makers in the national and EU governments;
3) in order to better facilitate the knowledge and competence needs of border areas and those who live and work there, an information portal should be created about cross-border relations throughout border regions between the EU, the EEA, and third country states;
4) training and capacity-building should be provided to those who want to initiate, implement, and employ cross-border co-operation with bilateral and multilateral partners in the wider Europe;
5) to advance the conversation about cross-border concerns, a moderator or a secretariat should be created in order to give legitimacy to the importance of cross-border issues in Europe, acting as information repository, facilitator, and as a common “meeting place” where cross-border issues, politics, problems, successes, etc. can be discussed, debated, and resolved;
6) effective, professional, high-tech border-crossing points is paramount to overcoming cross-border problems.
At the Border Dialogues conference mentioned above, Pavel Klimkin, the Ukrainian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that cross-border co-operation in Europe is more about the border itself rather than the crossing, or the overcoming of borders. Maros Sefcovic, the Vice-President of the European Commission answered that there is political will to decrease the bureaucracy and the waiting times across borders, — and even to break down borders altogether. The question is, when will political will become political practice at the borders of the EU and the Schengen zones?
The key to solving cross-border issues that arise as the authority of governments are enacted and implemented at border crossings is to aim for the goal of completely eliminating borders between and among nation-states. In doing so, disparities between and among countries in the wider Europe would diminish or disappear, economic development would thrive, family ties strengthened, mutual cultural understanding made possible, and good neighbour relations would be the norm.
The “grenseboerbevis” signed between Norway and Russia is a critical step in that direction.
Aileen A. Espíritu is the Institute Leader of The Barents Institute at the University of Tromsø, Kirkenes, Norway.
