Home 
Publications Analysts question whether EU will fully implement its Baltic Sea strategy
Publications Analysts question whether EU will fully implement its Baltic Sea strategy | Analysts question whether EU will fully implement its Baltic Sea strategy |
|
|
| Written by Michael de LAINE | |
| Friday, 18 September 2009 | |
|
By Michael de Laine, The Copenhagen Voice , 18 September 2009 EU leaders meeting in Stockholm have discussed the European Union’s Baltic Sea strategy. The Swedish EU Presidency confirmed that the EU heads of state and government are expected to adopt the strategy at the end of October. But analysts question whether the EU will fully implement the strategy, as words in the past have often not been followed by action. The Swedish EU Presidency of the European Union confirmed today that the EU heads of state and government are expected to adopt the EU’s Baltic Sea strategy at the end of October. The announcement came after representatives of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Investment Bank and European Union member states, together with Toomas Ilves, President of Estonia, and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt discussed the strategy at a meeting in Stockholm. The strategy indicates that rapid action is needed to clean up the Baltic Sea. “The environmental objective ranks as a high priority based on the urgency of addressing the ecological and environmental decline of the Baltic Sea in particular,” said the working group that prepared the action plan for the Baltic Sea strategy. “Whilst the development of the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region also needs to address environmental concerns in land areas, the priority given to the marine environment reflects the 2007 European Council conclusions, highlighting that the strategy for the Baltic Sea region must address the urgent environmental challenges related to the Baltic Sea. “Fulfilment of this objective will also secure the full economic potential of the goods and services provided by the marine ecosystem, thereby improving the well-being and health of people living in the region, and in line with the overall objectives of the Integrated Maritime Policy. The action plan introduces the notion of interdependence of countries in the Baltic Sea region in the field of environment, especially with regard to the pollution of the Baltic Sea.” The idea behind the Baltic Sea strategy is to use the existing EU legislative programmes, to combine funding sources, and to make farming more efficient. The strategy rests on four pillars (environmental sustainability, prosperity, accessibility and attractiveness, and safety and security) and 15 priority areas representing the main areas where the strategy can contribute to improvements (either through tackling the main challenges or through seizing the main opportunities); each priority area will be the responsibility of one EU member (sometimes several), which will involve all relevant stakeholders. The ‘environmental sustainability’ pillar covers: * Reducing nutrient inputs to the sea to acceptable levels * Preserving natural zones and biodiversity, including fisheries * Reducing the use and impact of hazardous substances * Becoming a model region for clean shipping * Mitigating and adapting to climate change The ‘prosperity’ pillar covers: * Removing barriers to the internal market in the Baltic Sea region, including improving cooperation in the customs and tax area * Exploiting the full potential of the region in research and innovation * Implementing the Small Business Act: to promote entrepreneurship, strengthen small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and increase the efficient use of human resources * Reinforcing the sustainability of agriculture, forestry and fisheries The ‘accessibility and attractiveness’ pillar covers: * Improving the access to, and the efficiency and security of, the energy markets * Improving internal and external transport links * Maintaining and reinforcing the attractiveness of the Baltic Sea region through education, tourism and health The ‘safety and security’ pillar covers: * Becoming a leading region in maritime safety and security * Reinforcing protection from major emergencies at sea and on land * Decreasing the volume of, and harm done by, cross-border crime Described as a key instrument in promoting territorial cohesion with both land and maritime dimensions, the European Union's Baltic Sea strategy is thus much broader than cleaning up the Baltic Sea. In this way, the working group said, “the strategy aims at ensuring that policies at all levels (local, regional, national and at the level of the European Union both for the maritime and terrestrial policies) all contribute to a competitive, cohesive and sustainable development of the region.” But the working group warned that the current economic crisis affects the actions and flagship projects presented in each section of the action plan. “This implies a less-favourable climate for investment, affecting both public sectors and private business generally,” the working group said. “This makes it all the more essential that the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region allows the partners in the region to take a longer perspective, recognising that when this crisis has passed the regions that have best prepared will be those best equipped to take advantage of the new opportunities and innovations.” The European Commission, which considers the proposed actions to be important, suggests that EU members use the crisis as an opportunity to review their priorities. “In particular, it is an opportunity to pay special attention to the quality of life of citizens, which requires a sustainable environment,” the European Commission said. “In addition, the crisis may change the focus of enterprises who may consider it wise to seize the business opportunities of the future in the ‘green businesses’. Moreover, the actions proposed could form part of any national recovery packages as they are likely to create jobs during implementation (e.g. transport and energy infrastructures) and afterwards through an increased accessibility and attractiveness of the region thereby creating economic growth.” “The Baltic Sea strategy largely has what it takes to become a success,” said Carsten Schymik of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in ‘Blueprint for a macro-region’, an analysis of the strategy. “Its policy priorities – environment, economy, infrastructure, security – are reasonably well chosen and largely in line with the issue agenda as this is perceived by regional stakeholders. However, it is questionable whether the EU strategy will be fully implemented. Neither insightful analysis of regional problems nor proposals for their solution have been in short supply in the past. Yet words have often not been followed by action.” Schymik said the main obstacle does not seem to be a lack of financial resources, more a lack of political will. “Although the Baltic Sea strategy fails to receive additional funding from the EU budget, the existing funds have the advantage of being available even under the changed circumstances of the global financial and economic crisis,” he said. “Rather, it is decisive to generate the political will to implement the strategy. This conclusion underscores the relevance of politics as a precondition for the strategy to become a successful model test.” In his analysis of the EU’s Baltic Sea strategy, Schymik said, “The action plan needs further fine-tuning with regard to deadlines, funding sources and responsible lead partners. Its greatest weakness, though, is a lack of measurable objectives or benchmarks, which would facilitate the progress review of the strategy... So far, benchmarks are only to be found in the environmental pillar of the strategy, at least to the extent that this pillar is based on the Helsinki Commission’s action plan for the Baltic Sea.” Schymik added that the success of the strategy requires a strong impetus for regional cooperation, a new dynamism that cannot be built upon the prospect of acquiring additional funding or creating new institutions. Nevertheless, the present strategy contains a promising element – the ‘Annual Forum’. “The idea of an annual forum should be seen as an opportunity to address one of the problems frequently referred to by regional stakeholders, namely the confusing multiplicity of regional networks and organisations, many of them working towards similar goals,” Schymik said. “Such a forum will not necessarily reduce the number of institutional actors in the region, but it could be instrumental to make the regional discourse more structured and focused. It could become a rallying point for the entire Baltic Sea region.” He envisaged the annual forum growing into a major event involving a variety of networks and organisations active in the region such as the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), the Baltic Sea States Subregional Co-operation (BSSSC), the Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC), the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC), the Nordic Council (NC), the Baltic Assembly (BA), the Baltic Sea Trade Union Network (BASTUN), the Baltic Development Forum (BDF), and the NGO Forum. In addition, Schymik said, Russia’s role in the context of the strategy remains unclear. In contrast to Norway, Russia did not participate in the consultation process, nor has it given an opinion about the Baltic Sea strategy. “Russia’s involvement thus remains a matter of discussion and a challenge for the EU and its member states in the Baltic Sea region,” Schymik said. “It would be useful to examine the present state of affairs of EU-Russia relations in the region, based on the question to what extent Russia must, can or may participate in the strategy in order to make it a success. In light of such an analysis it could be considered offering Russia a comprehensive partnership in the framework of the Baltic Sea strategy.” A survey conducted by the Baltic Sea Unit of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) noted that EU’s Baltic Sea strategy is designed to deliver a more prosperous, environmentally sound, accessible and safe region. “Hopes for implementing the strategy and reaching its goals are generally high, but are they too high?” the agency asked. “We believe not and we agree with one of our respondents who maintained that the hopes entailed in the strategy are modest hopes compared to the advances already made in recent decades,” said Thomas Johansson and Mikael Olsson of the Baltic Sea Unit. But, they added, contacts across this new Mare Nostrum of the EU are not yet intensive enough. This is a worrisome situation, because contacts are the key to generating awareness and fencing off ignorance. In its turn, awareness is a prerequisite for intuitive regional thinking. “However, at present we still do not know our neighbours well enough to make them a natural first choice when faced with a need or situation of some kind,” added Johansson and Olsson. “Clearly, if thinking and acting regionally is to become the rule rather than the exception, continued attention must be paid to the role of contacts and unprejudiced awareness of the opportunities available in the region.” Connecting the Baltic Sea region to the surrounding world thus remains a high priority issue, also in the years to come, they said. Click here to read the Swedish EU Presidency announcement Click here to download the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region Action Plan Click here to read the German Institute for International and Security Affairs analysis of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Click here to go to the Sida Baltic Sea Unit website Click here to go to the Helsinki Commission website Click here to read more about the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy |