sou · GWB348EN · 2009-01-01 00:00:00 — I propose that take a number of initiatives to improve environment work within the Baltic Sea through deeper cooperation with adjoining countries. These initiatives are aimed at greater inter-country cooperation for the implementa- Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. tion of the MSD and to supplement the measures specified in the BSAP. This should be done within the framework of a pilot project, which, in the MSD, is specified as a way to improve implementation in especially vulnerable sea areas. It is particu- larly important to obtain the support of Commis- sion in this work. should work to ensure that the pilot project is focused on integrating environment issues in the agri- culture and fishing sector to a much greater extent than is the case today. Within the pilot project, the countries should therefore cooperate to achieve common standpoints on Euro- pean agricultural and fisheries policy, with the aim of amending these towards greater regionalisation and environmental con- cern. The pilot project should also be oriented towards meas- ures where models for compliance control of agreements are tested in project form. should also initiate cooperation with other Baltic Sea countries to examine which areas and/or sectors are well suited to concrete, inter-country management measures. I further propose that works to ensure an intergov- ernmental fund is established aimed at contributing financial resources to projects and measures to improve the Baltic Seas environment. The fund shall contribute to better coordination of environment efforts made in project form and of the environment-related investments made with the support of investment banks. It should also be possible for the fund to provide support for developing project ideas for environment investment projects that meet the requirements for loans from investment banks and grants from private foundations. HELCOM should administer this fund and appoint a special purpose. should also work to ensure that funding from Programme for Objective 3 Territorial Cooperation (Interreg) for the Baltic Sea region, and parts of the structural funds for the EU agri- cultural and fisheries policies, are channelled to this fund. I also propose that endeavours to ensure that the responsibility for implementation of the pilot project is coordi- nated within HELCOM. SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. 3.5.1The implications of a pilot project As previously mentioned, the MSD provides the possibility to cre- ate pilot projects for more rapid of programmes of measures in areas in need of emergency measures, and to implement stricter protection measures. Accelerating implementa- tion of the MSD by establishing such programmes is regarded in several respects with scepticism by several Baltic Sea countries, in that the timetable for implementation was brought forward to 2020 in the negotiation process. However, the timeline as regards several of the introductory processes listed in the MSD could be shortened without the goal of achieving good environmental status by 2020 having to be formally reformulated. has been making endeavours to have the Baltic Sea designated a pilot project. The other country which takes a positive view of the pilot project idea is . Other countries have expressed no definitive opinion on the proposal, apart from and Estonia, who have expressed some scepticism. feels that Commission should not be involved in the work since this would set demands which the countries might not be able to live up to. It believes instead that the pilot project will have a more flexible focus if it is managed by HELCOM. is of the opinion that a pilot project with the aim of accelerating implementation seems unrealistic. Both coun- tries do not however intend to stand in the way of the establish- ment of a pilot project as long as the majority of the countries around the Baltic Sea are positive to the proposal. Integration between sectors and countries shall be the essential aspect of the pilot project. The pilot project should focus on how environment issues can be better integrated into the fisher- ies and agricultural sectors, since these areas are only dealt with very briefly in the BSAP. In relation to the MSD, the pilot project is about dealing with more segments in the directive than is the case with the BSAP, with the aim of achieving good ecological status in the sea areas by 2020. One objective should be to region- alise agricultural and fishing issues to a greater extent within the EU and to afford the Baltic Sea countries greater scope to design regulatory frameworks and measures in accordance with the pre- vailing conditions and prerequisites in the Baltic Sea area. A pilot project should therefore be more than a programme of measures. Since none of the measures in the BSAP are legally binding for the Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. countries, one added value aspect could also be found in focusing the set-up of the pilot project on the measures implemented and assessing these results in relation to the established objectives. Cooperation between the countries can also contribute to devel- oping supervision methods to ensure that results are obtained. Focus should otherwise be on planning and zoning of the sea areas, which constitute relatively new areas of cooperation. 3.5.2Financing of measures in the pilot project There are currently more economic means available than ever before for protection of the environment in the Baltic Sea area. This is however tied to several organisations and actors with their own policies and agendas. Activities are often financed via the central government budget. An important issue for implementation of a pilot project and the BSAP is how the work can be suitably financed bearing in mind the current situation. Much of the work must be financed via the central government budgets of and other countries, whilst measures of a more experimental nature can be financed via the EU. The following resources for intergovernmental envi- ronment work are currently available: General national financing of intergovernmental environmental work Intergovernmental environment work is partly financed via the central government budget, mostly through various projects at the Swedish EPA. It is very difficult to estimate how much money is available here. The specific item in the environmental budget for international and regional environmental cooperation currently amounts to million. of this is thought to go to environment initiatives. Activities within are financed via the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Cooperation in the envi- ronmental field in is intended to complement work done within the EU, HELCOM and OSPAR. SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. Nordic environment ministers meet three times a year to draft guidelines for Nordic environmental cooperation. They follow a four-year work programme, including the Nordic Environmental Action Programme, which is linked to the work done in the EU and to other international processes. The aim of the Action Pro- gramme is to cement common principles for measuring, monitor- ing and analysing e.g. the state of the environment. A spe- cial Arctic strategy, the Nordic strategy on climate change and contaminants in the Arctic, has also been developed. The NEFCO financing programme is linked to focuses on . The programme allocates risk capital to projects that e.g. focus on the environment. The investment fund within NEFCO has over million at its disposal every year and is owned by the Nordic countries. has increased its presence in the Baltic Sea area considerably through the of regional secre- tariats which have project funding tied to their activities. This funding, around million, is allocated through official announcements. Around a quarter goes to environmental projects. The Northern Dimension is a partnership concerning the relations of the Baltic Sea area and the Arctic region (including and ) with regions in north-west . Northern Dimension is primarily a discussion forum for EU Member States in official Baltic Sea region and north-west . The policy highlights sev- eral problems and potential solutions that are specific to northern Europe. Area-specific environmental challenges are among the things defined. Projects that aim to fulfil the policys goals have, until now, primarily been financed via the Interreg Programme or Neighbourhood and (). Only within the framework of the environmental partner- ship does Northern Dimension control its own funds. Financing is provided via ment () and the member countries. The projects are par- ticularly focused on the disposal of radioactive waste, but also on emission problems. The Environmental Partnership within North- ern Dimension is partly financed through the Swedish central gov- ernment budget. During the period 2002–2008, has con- Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. tributed million to this intergovernmental fund. All in all, about million has been distributed from the fund during this period, where the other primary contributors, along with , have been the EU, , , and . This funding has co-financed 12 projects, most of which have concerned the environment to some extent. has funded some of the projects in the Northern Dimen- sion Environmental Partnership bilaterally through Sida at a cost of about million, mostly for the construction of Russian treatment facilities. Sidas Baltic Sea Unit has an appropriation from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs of about million for Baltic Sea cooperation on for example the environment. About two million of this is distributed to mostly local cooperation projects for environment measures in the Baltic Sea area. The EUs cohesion policy/Objective 3 Territorial Cooperation (previously Interreg) The aim of the cohesion policy, the EUs policy for regional devel- opment, is to contribute to economic and social cohesion within the EU. The main purpose is to reduce regional differences. The structural funds, the means to achieve this, constitute just over three-quarters of the EU budget. The structural funds finance long-term programmes within the area of economic and social cohesion. (), one of four regional funds and the smallest, aims to redress the regional imbalance in the EU. ERDF finances initiatives in infra- structure, employment, local and regional development, etc. Objective 3 Territorial Cooperation is one initiative in the area. There is also a cohesion fund mainly dedicated to the new EU Member States. The funding is aimed at environmental projects and trans-European networks for transport infrastructure. During the programme period 2007–2013, there are 30 or so programmes for the Baltic Sea area worth a total of around billion. Programmes that concerned are partly border SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. cooperation programmes in which most Swedish counties are entitled to participate, and partly transnational programmes for larger, coherent areas including the whole of . There are also interregional programmes for networking and exchanging experience throughout the EU. The Baltic Sea as a common resource has about billion in its budget and is the largest of the Baltic Sea programmes. As part of the programme, about million is being allocated to environment measures during the period. During the programme period 2007–2013, national strategies for regional cohesion are complementing EU strategies. In , this has resulted in the Government drafting A national strategy for regional competitiveness, entrepreneurship and employment which constitutes a clear link to the EUs prioritisation of eco- nomic and social cohesion policy. The MSD states that Commission can in some way provide supportive action to the development of pilot projects, and that EU funding instruments should be utilised to implement them. There is currently no information as to how much this might be in financial terms. NIB gives credit to private and public projects aimed as promoting economic cooperation between its member countries. NIB can also take part in new investments in its member countries. Areas in which the bank grants credits include infrastructure, energy initia- tives, water supply, waste management and the environmental sec- tor, both private and public. The NIB set up in January 2008 a new loaning instrument worth million to finance projects aimed at the implementation of the BSAP. The bank is jointly owned by , , , , , , and . Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. The efforts with the pilot project is raising the level of ambition of the Baltic Sea countries and uniting them around the development of a number of specific measures related to implementation of the MSD. The Inquiry has considered whether these measures should primarily be focused on implementation of the BSAP, but has found that the pilot project approach should be wider. The BSAP constitutes an important but inadequate environment protection. For example, it contains few measures for biodiversity and far too few measures for agriculture and fishing. The focus areas that should be part of the pilot project initiative are discussed in several other chapters in this report. A list of the spe- cific measures deemed to be the most important to cooperate on in the Baltic Sea area is given below. Seek to achieve regional agreement on the need for joint action to increase regionalisation of Fisheries Policy and to show much more environmental concern in the practical application of the policy (see Section 3.6). Seek to achieve a consensus on agriculture and eutrophication and on general issues of principle (see Section 3.6). Based on this consensus to work to ensure change is effected to Agricultural Policy towards greater environmental concern and regionalisation (see Section 3.6). Work to bring about zoning of sea areas on a community basis and as part of this work to promote the of pro- tected areas of a transboundary nature (see Chapter 4). SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. Establish a committee to assess compliance of the Convention and the BSAP (see Section 3.4). Develop cooperation on data standardisation. Develop joint methods of estimating the cost of action and the cost of no action. Develop joint supervision support. Development of models as a basis for decision-making on the local level. Create a joint digital database of the sea-bed. Inter-country cooperation to compile deep-sea data so that they are standard- ised and collected in common portals. Work with the hot spots identified by HELCOM. Establish a joint fund for the financing of measures within the pilot project which will mean that cost efficiency is assessed on an interregional basis rather than a national basis (see below). As regards financing of initiatives, the current situation with a large number of of environment work is not the best. Under the BSAP, should act so that their prioritisations complement each other, or that they coordinate their efforts as far as possible. The investment banks that finance projects in the Baltic Sea area should coordinate their activities in future in order to help implement the BSAP. Within the framework of a pilot project, models for coordinating financing should therefore be developed and tested. A new financing system is needed in order to improve the coor- dination of environment work in the Baltic Sea and to work systematically and cost-effectively as regards the development of environment management. should therefore pro- pose an intergovernmental fund for Baltic Sea environmental coop- Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. eration to set up. Through such a fund, existing funds can be invested where they will be the most cost effective with regard to effect on the environment. Initiatives for the pilot project and spe- cial measures, as detailed in the BSAP, should receive special con- sideration by the committee when announcing the availability of funding and assessing applications. Based on a pragmatic interpre- tation of the common good in a Baltic Sea context, resources could for example be allocated to countries where they have the most benefit, which is especially relevant regarding the environ- ment issue. The EUs territorial perspective and its principles of regional cohesion are gradually becoming increasingly integrated in the environment field, the BSAP being a prime example. Another example is the spatial planning initiatives, the need for which is highlighted by Commission in the policy document regarding European policy and which the Member States are now starting to develop. There is therefore no given reason why the EU should manage structural fund financing for project development regarding the environment field in the future. The management can to good effect, be decentralised and be included as part of a common Baltic Sea fund. Some of the funding for the agricultural and fisheries policies could, in addition, be channelled to this fund which is to support environment work in line with specific regional problems and conditions. The regionalisation of the agricultural and fisheries policies, as advo- cated by the , presupposes a redistri- bution of the EUs support mechanisms. Other environ- ment should, at the same time, consider channelling funds to the intergovernmental fund so that a coherent programme can be created to enable both fulfilment of the objectives of the BSAP and implementation of the MSD. Previous experience indicates the need for a mechanism that supports the implementation of inter- national environmental agreements. In the view of the Inquiry, a fund for the Baltic Sea is necessary in order to facilitate implemen- tation of the pilot project and help even out differences in the capacities of countries to take action. A special committee should be established within HELCOM to manage and administrate the fund. In order for HELCOM to be able to administrate the fund, it needs to broaden its competence. A reference group should for this reason be linked to the commit- tee, consisting of actors from the various organisations that con- SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. tribute to the joint fund. Commission should be included in the HELCOM fund committee to ensure that the fun- damental principles of agricultural, fisheries and cohesion policy are upheld, as should other representatives who work in accordance with specific policies and towards specific targets in this context. HELCOM also needs to establish a project-oriented department within its secretariat in order to deal practically with the task. The conditions should also be in place for investment banks to be able to coordinate their activities with the proposed fund in order to bring project funding into line with long-term invest- ments. Funding through the will fur- thermore only become relevant when there is a creditworthy pro- ject with an identifiable borrower. These conditions have been dif- ficult to fulfil, especially in . In this context, a clear support function to aid development from project idea to completed pro- ject proposal would be needed. At an initial juncture, the proposed intergovernmental fund should be able to give financial support to convert project ideas into environmental investment projects that fulfil the requirements for borrowing from banks and grants from private foundations. It may also be necessary to support local and regional actors. 3.6Swedish action plan for regional cooperation on the Baltic Sea environment I propose that adopt a plan for national action within the relevant sector areas to promote intergovernmental coop- eration on environment issues. This action plan should form the basis of work within the EU, HELCOM, the pilot project and other processes and organisations. Its primary objective should be greater integration between the EU envi- ronment, fisheries and agricultural policy areas. It should assist in coordinating stakeholders and sectors and give the work additional transparency. It should include a timeline which indi- cates when it is important to act within the framework of vari- ous policy areas and organisations. It will be an actor-related addition to the strategies which is obliged to produce under the MSD. For example, the opportunities arising Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. from EU Presidency during 2009 should be used to push the environment issue and Baltic problems higher up agenda. The EU strategy for the Baltic Region which the EU Commission is currently developing will also be an important basis for future work. I propose that the Government be responsible for drafting and disseminating the action plan and that it should issue an annual report on the progress of the work in general as well as on how the negotiating processes have turned out nationally, inter-regionally and internationally. 3.6.1Areas for common action The MSD and the BSAP have given the environment issue greater political importance than ever before. The Inquirys assessment is that it is nevertheless very difficult to obtain an over- all view of the work that is being carried out within and among countries, as well as of the political negotiations that form the basis of the positions adopted and the results achieved. At the same time, the constantly voiced ambition is to integrate environmental issues more closely with the agriculture and fisheries sectors (c.f. the process), but progress has so far been limited. A num- ber of parallel processes are ongoing, nationally and internationally, in which it is possible for to take action with a view to increasing integration between these sector areas. This work must take place in broad national processes before it is undertaken at the intergovernmental level. The Governments work as regards inte- gration of the sectors needs to be made more visible. All relevant social sectors should at an early stage and in accordance with already determined guidelines be involved in developing the Swedish standpoints. The result should take shape as action plans for each individual sector, including descriptions of how the work is to be carried out in relation to the environment policy. What is thus required is a coherent action plan for environment work within the framework of intergovern- mental processes and organisations. The action plan should contain timelines for political action with a view to achieving better coor- dination in the environment issue among the sectors con- cerned. A strategic model of that kind for environment work is used in the UK. The timeline should contain mechanisms SOU 2008:48 Intergovernmental cooperation on the environment and a Swedish .. for consultation, winning support and negotiating on important decision processes, first and foremost in the EU and HELCOM. The action plan must facilitate consultation with local and regional actors and with non-governmental organisations (NGOs). is a brief description of the policy areas, processes and organisations within which it is most important for to develop a clear national standpoint and propose changes by means of the work on action plans. A survey of the timings within which the Government should work strategically is also outlined below. 3.6.2Consideration of the environment in Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) The conservation of fish resources is essential to a sustainable development of the environment. In , (to some extent together with the ) is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of species stocks and their functions within the eco- system.