On December 21st, 20008 Schengen zone was extended at the expense of 9 countries that had joined European Union on May 1st 2004, namely: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Malta. From this point on the zone of free movement of people includes 22 out of 27 EU Member States (excluding Great Britain, Ireland, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania), as well as Norway and Iceland that are not members of European Union.
On December 21st, 20008 Schengen zone was extended at the expense of 9 countries that had joined European Union on May 1st 2004, namely: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Malta. From this point on the zone of free movement of people includes 22 out of 27 EU Member States (excluding Great Britain, Ireland, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania), as well as Norway and Iceland that are not members of European Union.
There were official celebrations with the participation of heads of the states organized in German Zittau, situated on the border between Poland, Germany and Czech Republic, in Hungarian Hegyeshalom, on the border between Austria, Hungary and Slovak Republic and on the check point Skofije/Rabuiese, dividing Italy and Slovenia. On this occasion Mr. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission visited Tallinn in order to participate in the similar border farewell solemnities.
According to Barroso, “As from today people can travel hassle-free between 24 countries of the Schengen area … from Portugal to Poland and from Greece to Finland”. The President of the European Commission emphasized that “Together we have overcome border controls as man-made obstacles to peace, freedom and unity in Europe”.
As the web site of the European Commission’s Delegation to Ukraine states, “Expansion of the Schengen zone is an unprecedented event in the history of Europe. As from today border controls between the countries previously separated by “iron curtain” are lifted as the last obstacles to creation of European space for free movement of persons. Citizens of new Eastern and Central EU Member States will enjoy the possibility of traveling to countries of Western Europe or visiting their Central European neighbors free from time consuming and complicated border controls”. The same site states: ”Schengen zone expansion will mean significant benefits for Ukrainian citizens. From now on Ukrainian citizens receiving Schengen visa in the consular establishment of one Eastern or Central European EU Member State will be able to visit not only this particular state but freely travel on the territory of all countries belonging to the Schengen zone”.
Not completely disagreeing with the optimistic outlook mentioned above we should however state that together with benefits Ukrainian citizens faced considerable disappointments and complications caused by the fact that neighboring countries apply completely different, tougher rules and regulations in terms of visa issuance.
During the first four months a considerable decrease (by 2,6 times) in the number of the trips made by Ukrainian citizens to EU Member States is noticed (this situation is described in more detail in the chapter “Preliminary Assessments of Implementation of the Agreement on Visa Regime Facilitation between Ukraine and EU”).
Regardless the lack of official data there are all grounds to explain such considerable reduction in the statistics of human contacts and visits abroad by the fact that “new” Schengen states made visa issuance unavailable for a great number of Ukrainian citizens who previously visited neighboring countries on a regular basis. In fact, the statistics of visits to “old” Schengen states practically has not changed as the rapid reduction is noticed in the number of trips to “new” Schengen countries.
New numerous requirements, such as bank statements, salary statements and real estate certificates, request for official invitation from hosting organization, increased financial requirements turned into unfeasible obstacles for millions of Ukrainian citizens.
The case of visa issuance to Republic of Poland is particularly sensitive. According to the statistics, about 35-40% of all trips made by Ukrainian citizens to EU Member States are visits to Poland. Poland continues to issue the biggest number of visas among all EU Member States and it has the biggest network of consular establishments – 5 Consulates in Kyiv, Lviv, Odessa, Lutsk and Kharkiv. Currently the possibility of establishing the 6th Consulate in Ivano-Frankivsk is being discussed. Operation capacities of General Consulate in Lviv were significantly enhanced after the opening of new Consulate building. Nevertheless after Schengen accession the situation with visa issuance for Ukrainian citizens became noticeably more complicated. This is attested by visa issuance and border crossing statistics.
According to our sources in the Republic of Poland during the first four months of 2008 all five Polish Consulates issued about 92 thousand visas while during the same period of the previous year about 221 thousand visas were issued. Thus a considerable decrease by 2,4 times is observed in the number of visas issued by Polish agencies. Polish representatives explain such situation by decrease in the general number of applicants as many citizens traditionally traveling to Poland are able to visit Poland with visas issued by other Schengen Member States. However, we consider such explanation to be insufficient as in conjunction with decrease in the number of issued visas a rapid decrease in the number of visits made by Ukrainian citizens to EU in general and to Poland in particular is noticed and recorded by custom services on both sides of the border.
Stating the decrease in the number of issued visas we should also take into account the changes in the quantitative proportions of single and multi entry visas. There are no relevant official data, however, comparative monitoring of the work of Polish General Consulate in Kyiv shows that over the previous year overall majority of the issued visas were multi entry and long term while currently the situation is the opposite – mostly single entry visas are being issued.
Such negative tendency is entirely corroborated by border data. According to Polish border service during the first half of 2008 the passenger flow through the border of Ukraine decreased by 18,9% and the movement of private and passenger traffic decreased by 20%. Only the number of truck transportation slightly increased – by 8%. Such data should be completed with the considerable change of proportions of border crossings in terms of the citizenship. Relevantly low indicator of decrease in the number of border crossings (18,9%) can be explained by the fact that the flow of citizens of Poland and other EU Member States crossing land Ukrainian-Polish border is rapidly increasing, while the number of Ukrainian citizens crossing the border is rapidly falling down by 2 and more times.
Introduction of local border traffic regime was supposed to become the instrument aimed at softening the outcomes of Schengen zone expansion. Local border traffic is a special regime for border area residents that gives them the possibility to cross the border with a special multi entry document permitting intended stay on the border territories of neighboring countries over the limited period of time. However, only Hungary out of three neighboring countries introduced this regime on time concurrently with Schengen accession while the negotiations with Slovak Republic and Poland were prolonged. (The instrument of local border traffic is discussed in detail in the chapter “Schengen Expansion – the view from Transcarpathia region”)
Agreement on Local Border Traffic between Ukraine and Slovak Republic is expected to enter into force in September 2008 and the situation with Poland remains undefined as European Commission made serious comments on the Agreement signed in March 2008. The most important remark is the demand for the parties to limit the Agreement validity only on the border area of 30 km, while in case of Slovak Republic and Hungary the exclusive border area of 50 km was applied and such norm did not provoke any remarks on behalf of EU.
Nevertheless, as of summer 2008 the instrument of local border traffic has not started its proper functioning. Accordingly, taking into account the facts mentioned above, negative outcomes of Schengen zone expansion were experienced by Ukrainian citizens to the maximum extent.
Apart from social and humanitarian outcomes of freedom of movement restriction, Schengen enlargement has economic impact as well, due to full devolution of practically all types of traditional cross border business management to the competence of citizens of EU Member States. Over the previous years even after introduction of national visas by neighboring countries the majority of border trade was run by Ukrainians. Regardless outdated and half legal type of such “employment” it benefited to the leveling of social and economic situation on the common border to some extent. Currently practically all border trade, at least on the borders with Poland and Slovak Republic, is taken over by neighbors and it deepened crises on the local employment market and increases the distance between life standards for citizens of Ukraine and EU Member States in border areas.
The temporary solution for such situation may be the full fledged introduction of local border traffic on the Ukrainian-Schengen border which is expected in the second half of 2008.
As of summer 2008 we may state the Schengen zone expansion positively influenced only a small (1-2%) percentage of Ukrainian citizens who previously had access to Schengen visas traveling to countries of Western and Central Europe. Now these citizens are exempted from the necessity of receiving national visas of Central European countries – one visa is valid for visiting any of 24 Schengen states.
Certainly, tourist groups and tourist agencies experienced a certain positive impact as now they can organize and carry out complex tours to several EU countries at once. It will speed up the process of following popular European tour routes by Ukrainian citizens such as Krakow-Prague-Vienna, Vilnius-Riga-Tallinn or Budapest-Bratislava-Vienna as now tourists need only one visa instead of three.
At the same time the number of Ukrainian citizens who experienced negative outcomes of Schengen zone expansion is much bigger than of those who benefited from it. In absolute figures the decrease in the number of trips made by Ukrainian citizens to EU countries is rather significant. Negative tendency is even worse than it was in 2000-2004 when visa free regime was substituted by introduction of national visas on behalf of candidate countries that became EU members in 2004.
Social impact of Schengen zone expansion on Ukraine lies in deepening the gap
between the elite and the rest of the society. Representatives of elites previously having access to Schengen visas have mostly benefited from Schengen zone expansion as they do not need to receive national visas to the countries of Central Europe. Bearers of diplomatic passports (diplomats, members of Parliament, state officials) were fully exempted from visa requirements and they currently enjoy the advantage of visa free entry on the territory of EU Member States. At the same time vast majority of Ukrainian citizens who previously traveled to neighboring EU countries on business, with purpose of employment, education, visiting relatives or friends and for personal touring trips faced significant obstacles in terms of new Schengen requirements. Most of them had to refuse from such visits or minimize their number. This problem is especially noticeable in border regions.
Taking into account low level of social culture in Ukraine such situation may provoke deepening the distance between different social classes (according to their social and wealth status). In addition, lifting visa obligation for one social minority and facilitating visa access for another may serve as a certain “bribe”. It will decrease the motivation of “privileged” categories for further lobbying of full-fledged visa regime elimination on behalf of EU as such problem will not be important for them or its importance will be considerably lower.
Such distance may touch upon international relations as well, as the situation concerning the right for border crossing is absolutely asymmetric and discriminating for Ukrainian citizens. As a result Euro skepticism is becoming more popular in Ukraine as well as demands to reestablish visa regime for EU Member States abolished in 2005.
Current situation with human contacts between Ukraine and EU did not develop all of a sudden. The perspective of current negative outcomes was foreseen in the researches of our partners and in CPCFPU studies, in particular in the analytical report “Visas with “human face”? Negotiations between Ukraine and EU on Visa Regime Liberalization” published in 2006 by Stefan Batory Foundation in cooperation with CPCFPU . The parties did not take into account potential outcomes to the full extent; expert recommendations were only partially and selectively realized.
Nevertheless, the lessons of the first months that passed since Schengen zone expansion should be carefully studied. The parties should at least admit that the activities aimed at prevention current problems were not sufficient and such situation had an impact on fundamental interests of the citizens.
