EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region – Concept, governance and cornerstones
The European Commission adopted a Communication on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region on 10 June 2009.
This followed a very precise request from EU Member States (under the Sweden Presidency), asking before and urging afterwards for:
I) European Council Conclusions of 14 December 2007, point 59: “Without prejudice to the integrated maritime policy, the European Council invites the Commission to present an EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region at the latest by June 2009. This strategy should inter alia help to address the urgent environmental challenges related to the Baltic Sea. The Northern Dimension framework provides the basis for the external aspects of cooperation in the Baltic Sea region.”
II) European Council Conclusions 29/30 October 2009, points 35 – 36 :”35. The European Council adopts the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and endorses the Council conclusions on the subject (13744/09). This Strategy constitutes an integrated framework to address common challenges, i.a. the urgent environmental challenges related to the Baltic Sea, and to contribute to the economic success of the region and to its social and territorial cohesion, as well as to the competitiveness of the EU.
36. The European Council calls upon all relevant actors to act speedily and ensure full implementation of the Strategy, which could constitute an example of a macro-regional strategy. It invites the Commission to present a progress report to the Council by June 2011.”
It was the first time that a comprehensive Strategy, covering several Community policies, was targeted on a ‘macro-region’.
The Baltic Strategy aims at coordinating action by Member States, regions, the EU, pan-Baltic organisations, financing institutions and non-governmental bodies to promote a more balanced development of the Region. It is is an EU internal strategy, with 8 Member States (Danmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Poland, Lettony, Estony, Lithuany) around the Baltic the EU having the responsibility to take the lead on an integrated approach to identify needs, solutions and match them to available resources,
The Governance and Implementation system is very simple:
i) Policy development up to the European Council
ii) Action Plan mainly EC/Memberstates-led, based on 15 priority areas, actions and examples of flagship projects to be updated on a periodical basis, according to EU BSR Presidencies Calendar: First one is scheduled during the PL presidency in 2011, to be followed during later BSR presidencies: DK 2012 – LT 2013 – LV 2015
iii) Coordination, monitoring and follow-up to the European Commission
– Implementation on the ground up to:
– Member State or equivalent to coordinate Priority Areas;
– Ministry, agency, or other body to lead flagship projects;
iv) monitoring, annual Forum with stakeholders and periodical Analytical report
The 4 cornerstones of this Strategy are:
1) Environmentally sustainable (e.g. reducing pollution in the sea)
2) Prosperous (e.g. promoting innovation in small and medium enterprises);
3) Accessible and attractive (e.g. better transport links)
4) Safe and secure (e.g. improving accident response)
The clear concept set up by the Commission within the launching and implementation proccess was:
A) No new institutions. The Baltic Sea Region has many cooperative structures: EC wouldn’t like to create new ones that could have imposed added administrative overhead without contributing to
effective action
B) Not just a strategy. There must be actions – concrete, visible actions – to overcome the
challenges facing the region. In its action plan, therefore, the Commission insists that Member States and other stakeholders take responsibility as lead partners for specific priority areas and flagship projects, for example by developing integrated maritime governance structures in line with the Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy
C) European Commission involvement. This should go beyond monitoring the implementation of funding programmes and the transposition of Directives. The Commission could fulfil the need for an independent, multi-sector body that can guarantee the necessary co-ordination, monitoring and follow-up of the action plan, as well as a regular updating of the plan and strategy as necessary
