EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 10.6.2009 
SEC(2009) 702 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMI TTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 
 
concerning the 
 
European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
  
Impact Assessment  
   
{COM(2009) 248 final} 
{SEC(2009) 703} 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 4 
1.1. Context and legal basis................................................................................................. 4 1.2. Organisation of consultation ........................................................................................ 4 1.2.1. Organisation of process................................................................................................ 4  
1.2.2. Key conclusions from stakeholder consultation .......................................................... 5 1.3. Scientific expertise...................................................................................................... .5  
1.4. Internal consultation..................................................................................................... 6 
1.5. Impact Assessment Board............................................................................................ 6 2. Problem definition........................................................................................................ 6 2.1. Challenges faced by the Baltic Sea Region.................................................................. 7 2.1.1. Environment............................................................................................................. .... 7 
2.1.1.1. Eutrophication........................................................................................................ ...... 7 
2.1.1.2. Marine biodiversity ................................................................................................... ... 7 
2.1.1.3. Hazardous substances.................................................................................................. .8  
2.1.1.4. Pollution from ships .................................................................................................. ... 9 
2.1.1.5. Climate change........................................................................................................ ... 10 
2.1.2. Prosperity .............................................................................................................. ..... 10 
2.1.2.1. Internal market and trade with neighbouring countries ............................................. 10 2.1.2.2. Innovation ............................................................................................................ ...... 11 
2.1.2.3. Entrepreneurship, SMEs, human resources ............................................................... 12 2.1.2.4. Agriculture, fishing and forestry................................................................................ 13 2.1.3. Accessibility and attractiveness ................................................................................. 13 2.1.3.1. Energy security, energy market in tegration and energy efficiency............................ 13 
2.1.3.2. Internal and external transport links........................................................................... 14 2.1.3.3. Attractiveness for ci tizens and tourists ...................................................................... 15 
2.1.4. Safety and security ..................................................................................................... 15 
2.1.4.1. Cross-border crime.................................................................................................... . 16 
2.1.4.2. Maritime safety ....................................................................................................... ... 16 
2.1.4.3. Major emergencies on sea and on land ...................................................................... 17 
EN 3   EN 2.2. Existing governance structures .................................................................................. 18 
2.2.1. General cooperation ................................................................................................... 18  
2.2.2. Assessment of macro-regional structures................................................................... 20 2.3. Summary of problem definiti on for the Baltic Sea Region........................................ 21 
2.3.1. Challenges for the Baltic Sea Region......................................................................... 21 2.3.2. The case for action at EU level .................................................................................. 22 3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 24 
4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 2 6 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 28 5.1. Impacts of governance objectives .............................................................................. 28 5.2. Impact on administrative costs................................................................................... 29 5.3. Economic, environmental and social impacts of implementation ............................. 31 6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 31 7. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 34 
Annexes........................................................................................................................ ............ 36 
Annex 1 - EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region - Planning................................................... 36 Annex 2 - Public consultation - summary................................................................................ 37 Annex 3 - Analysis of challenges faced by BSR ..................................................................... 47 Annex 4 - Policy scenario impacts........................................................................................... 60 Annex 5 - A comparison of the governance options for each identified challenge ................. 66 Annex 6 - List of abbreviations................................................................................................ 69 
EN 4   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Context and legal basis 
The European Council Presidency Conclusions of 14 December 2007 indicated that “without 
prejudice to the integrated maritime policy, th e 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 challeng es related to the Baltic Sea. 
The same Council Conclusions endorsed the integrated Maritime Policy for the EU, 
emphasizing that "it should take particular account of the different specificities of Member States and specific maritime regions which s hould call for increased  cooperation, including 
islands, archipelagos and outermost regions as well as of the international dimension." The 
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region therefore constitutes a first example of an integrated 
maritime strategy at a sea-basin level. 
The geographical area covered by  the strategy is the macro -region around the Baltic Sea. 
Overall, it concerns eight Member States (Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Poland, Germany and Denmark). Three non-Member  States (Russian Federation, Norway and 
Belarus) may also have an interest in the st rategy. The timetable for the development of the 
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)  and the Impact Assessment is included in 
Annex 1. 
1.2. Organisation of consultation 
Extensive consultation has been  undertaken with stakeholde rs in the Baltic Sea Region 
(BSR), including Member States, Regional and Local Authorities, NGOs, Inter-Governmental 
Bodies, the private sector and the general public. A summary of stakeholder views is 
contained in Annex 2. 
1.2.1.  Organisation of process 
During the development of the EUSBSR a nd the IA of the EUSBSR the following 
consultations were undertaken: 
(1) Written submissions of Member States:
 Member States and non-Member States 
provided their position through a series of ‘non papers’.  Non-papers were received 
from Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, La tvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden and 
non-Member States Belarus and Russia. 
(2) Stakeholder meetings : A series of individual meeti ngs were organised between the 
Commission and stakeholders (Member States , Regional and Local Authorities of MS, 
NGOs and Inter-Governmental Bodies, pr ivate sector) and experts (NORDREGIO, 
VASAB, HELCOM, and European Environmental Agency). A series of 6 main events 
(open to representatives of Member Stat es, regions, local authorities, financing 
institutions, the private sector, pan-Baltic organisations, NGOs etc.) were organised 
between September 2008 and February 2009, including 2 main stakeholder 
conferences in September 2008 and Febr uary 2009 respectively and 4 thematic 
conferences (also involving experts) between September and December 2008.  
EN 5   EN (3) Public consultation : A public consultation on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea 
Region was launched on th e website of DG REGIO.1 The period of consultation was 
03.11.2008-31.12.2008. In the framework of the cons ultation a series of open ended 
questions were asked regarding the main challenges faced by the BSR, the objectives 
of the EUSBSR, how to address the cha llenges, how to increase cooperation among 
actors, and what can be consid ered as the priority actions. 
1.2.2.  Key conclusions from stakeholder consultation 
– In total 109 authorities, institutions or i ndividuals responded to the consultation and 
presented their views, includi ng the 8 Member States in th e BSR , 3 non Member States 
(Russia, Belarus, Norway), 31 Regional and Local Authorities, 48 Inter-Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Bodies, 19 representatives fr om the private sector out of which 2 were 
experts / researchers and 3 individuals.  The following views were expressed: 
– The expectations of the Member Stat es and stakeholders are very high. 
– There was an overall agreement that there ar e merits in having the European Commission 
involved both in the design and implementatio n of a strategy for the BSR. One of the 
reasons is that existing Inte r-Governmental and Non-Governme ntal Bodies do not have the 
authority needed to ensure acti ons are implemented in practice. 
– There is a general view that no new institution should be create d at the level of the BSR, 
but that the experience and capaci ty of existing ones should be exploited as far as possible. 
– Some stakeholders indicated that the decision s taken at the level of the BSR should be 
binding and that instruments to en sure this should be created. 
– It is generally accepted that there is little scope for new EU legislation or funding although 
this would be desirable for several stakeholders. Actions addressing problems will have to be funded by the Member States, through ex isting EU funds or from other sources 
(regions, International Financial Institutions, NGOs). 
– There is an overall agreement on four main obj ectives for the region: to make the BSR an 
environmentally sustainable pla ce; to make the BSR a prosper ous place; to make the BSR 
an accessible and attractive place; and, to make the BSR a safe and secure place. 
1.3. Scientific expertise 
DG Regional Policy contracted 9 experts
2 in the fields of the specific challenges faced by the 
BSR (governance, environment, transport, ener gy, relations with Russia, competitiveness and 
growth, crime and security, demography) to pr ovide a contribution to  the EUSBSR and the 
Impact Assessment. As there already exists a wealth of literature on the challenges and 
opportunities faced by the BSR, the role of the experts was to provide  a synthetic overview 
and critical assessment of  the various elements of the Imp act Assessment, and not to conduct 
new analysis. In addition, in the development of the socio-economic analysis contacts were 
established with research institutes in the region. 
                                                 
1 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/baltic/consultation_en.htm  
2 Daniel Tarshys, Wiktor Szydarowski, Hallgeir Aalbu, Johannes Klein, Philipp Schmidt-Thome, Tomas 
Hanell, Erik Terk, Klaus Spiekermann, Roberts Kilis. 
EN 6   EN 1.4. Internal consultation 
A working group of 20 DGs was set up to disc uss the EUSBSR in summer 2008 and has met 
regularly since. The following DGs were c onsulted: DG AGRI, DG AIDCO, DG COMM, 
DG EAC, DG ECFIN, DG EMPL, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG ESTAT, DG INFSO, DG JLS, 
DG MARE, DG MARKT, DG RELEX, DG RTD, DG SANCO, DG TAXUD, DG TRADE, 
DG TREN, and SG. The EIB also participated in  this group. Each DG wa s also consulted on a 
bilateral basis in its field of competence and wa s invited to provide text  input to the EUSBSR. 
The Commission services also provided info rmation on ongoing Community initiatives and 
EU priorities in the region.  
An Impact Assessment Steering Group was also set up with the participation of the same 
DGs. The Impact Assessment Steering Group met 4 times. The meetings took pace on 19 
December 2008, 14 January 2009, 29 January 2009 and 10 February 2009.  
1.5. Impact Assessment Board 
The draft Impact Assessment report was submitte d to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 
16 February 2009. The IAB hearing took pl ace on 4 March 2009, and comments from the 
IAB followed on 9 March 2009, where the IAB reque sted the resubmissi on of the IA. To 
address these comments a number of modifi cations were undertaken. In the problem 
description of each challenge a justification fo r the need for BSR specific action was included. 
The analysis of governance structures was made  more coherent, and analysed according to 
their ability to achieve the specific objectives related to governance, namely to improve 
coordination and coherence, to improve institu tional capacity to ensure implementation of 
action and to improve visibility and accountabil ity. The ability of the governance options to 
address the governance challenges related to  the individual themes of the strategy 
(environment, prosperity, accessibility and attr activeness, safety and security) was also 
evaluated. Costs of each governance option were described. The imp act of the financial crisis 
was included in the problem description. Follo wing the second opinion of the IAB of the 2 
April 2009, the analysis of shortcomings of ex isting governance structures was strengthened, 
the role of third countries was further clarifie d, administrative costs were examined in greater 
detail and the monitoring and eval uation provisions were adapted. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
The European Council has recognized that there are a set of challenges in the BSR which may 
not be adequately addr essed. Socio-economic analysis, inpu t from the Commission services 
and a stocktaking of initiatives in the region  identified a very broad range of potential 
challenges. In order to identify issues which ar e of policy relevance at the level of the BSR, 
each challenge was assessed against the following criteria: 
• A clear need for public intervention; 
• The relevance of action at the macroregional BSR level;  
• The need for further acti on beyond existing initiatives; 
Issues which have spillover effects into parts or the whole of the macroregion and which are 
not already dealt with in the cont ext of EU policies are deemed to  be of strategi c relevance to 
the BSR. For issues which are of common con cern (e.g. countries are facing similar problems 
EN 7   EN without spillover effects such as an ageing population) the rele vance of the macroregion is 
mainly limited to coordination and exchange of information regarding experience gained from 
policy implementation. Each of the key challeng es under the headings of  four main themes 
(environment, prosperity, accessibility and attr activeness and safety and security), was 
analysed according to the steps mentioned above. The results of this analysis are presented in 
detail in Annex 3. 
2.1. Challenges faced by the Baltic Sea Region 
2.1.1.  Environment 
The Helsinki Commission, Council of the Baltic Sea States, Baltic 21, the Adjacent Areas 
Programme of the Nordic Council of Ministers, the Baltic Palett e, the Baltic Sea States Sub-
regional Cooperation, the Ba ltic Development Forum, Euroregi on Baltic, Union of the Baltic 
Cities, VASAB 2010, and Baltic Sea University Pr ogramme are all organisations which focus 
– among other issues - on the environment. 
2.1.1.1.  Eutrophication 
In the Baltic Sea Region, eutrophication is a major problem, especially in the southern and 
eastern parts of the Baltic S ea. Eutrophication is an increas e in nutrients which causes 
excessive growth of algae and can, for example, result in decreased oxygen levels when algae 
decompose. It is caused by excessive nutrien t inputs (nitrogen and phosphorus) which mainly 
originate from inadequately treated sewage, ag ricultural run-off and airborne emissions from 
road and maritime traffic and combustion processe s. Eutrophication leads to problems such as 
intensified planktonic blooms, increase of f ilamentous algae and increased volumes of oxygen 
free bottom water. The nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Baltic Sea have increased by 
several times during the last century. Nitroge n should be reduced in order to reduce oxygen 
depletion, the amount of filamentous algae and the effects on th e benthic community. 
Phosphorus has to be reduced in order to limit the summer blooms of cyanobacterial (blue 
green) algae. As the Baltic Sea is shallow and is semi-enclosed with slow water exchange 
rate, any nutrient input has a long lasting effect on the entire sea.  Therefore all th e countries in 
the catchment area are concerned and no coun try or region, acting alone, can solve the 
problem.  
European directives (in particular the Water Framework Directive) ex ist with the aim of 
reducing nutrient input into waters. However, th e results of the MARE Nest model show that 
implementing the Water Framework Directive is not sufficient to achieve a good environmental status of the Baltic Sea. The a dditional efforts taken at the BSR level are taken 
through HELCOM. In this organisation countr ies are represented by their Ministers of 
Environment and HELCOM does not have the ma ndate to implement measures or enforce 
implementation.  
The strategic challenges relate d to eutrophication are implem entation of actions already 
agreed to reduce nutrients and promoting measur es and practices which reduce nutrient losses.  
2.1.1.2.  Marine biodiversity 
The Baltic Sea ecosystem is unique and particul arly vulnerable to cha nges, whether in its 
physical and chemical composition or in the ba lance of the food web. There are many threats 
to biodiversity in the Baltic S ea. One is the increa sing arrival of non-nativ e species (e.g. water 
flea and comb jellyfish) that compete with native species and sometimes cause changes to the 
EN 8   EN whole ecosystem. Other threats are contaminan ts that affect grow th, reproduction and 
resistance against diseases and stress in fi sh, marine mammals and seabirds. The low oxygen 
content of the bottom water in parts of the Baltic Sea creates species-poor areas. The destruction of habitats by many human activi ties (such as dredging, construction along 
shorelines, numerous obstacles  for migratory fish in wate rways, contaminants, low oxygen 
levels, etc.) also threaten the Ba ltic biodiversity. Fisheries direct ly impact on fish diversity in 
the Baltic Sea and have led to declines in so me fish stocks, mainly herring in the Western 
Baltic, eel and cod. The main reason for this dec line in stocks is the se tting of too high total 
allowable catch and poor complia nce, with significant amounts of  misreported or unreported 
catches particularly in the Eastern cod fishery.  
The policy with the largest impact on biodive rsity is the EU Common Fisheries Policy, a 
review of which was launched in 2008. Direct ives adopted with im plications for the 
biodiversity of the Baltic Sea are the Marine  Strategy Directive and Habitats and Birds 
Directives, as well as the Biodiversity Acti on Plan. Several areas of the Baltic Sea are 
protected under NATURA 2000. 
The Council, in the framework of the Common  Fisheries Policy, sets binding targets. The 
decision of the Council is ba sed on a Commission proposal, whic h takes into consideration 
scientific advice. The total allowable catch is determined in certain cases, when this is a 
priority, based on a multiannual plan, which current ly only exists for cod in the Baltic Sea. 
The multi-annual plan can help in determining a more sustainable annual catch. It is also 
approved at Council level based on a proposal from the Commissi on, and is therefore subject 
to interests represented in the Council, where mini sters of fishery particip ate. At the level of 
the BSR, institutionalized cooperation on fisheries,  including representativ es of all interested 
parties, with a free exch ange of views is missing. 
The BSR institution dealing with ensuring the sust ainability of fisheries at the level of the 
Baltic Sea Region is HELCOM. The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan contains non-binding 
text on ensuring that by 2021 pop ulations of all commercially  exploited fish species are 
within safe biological limits, reach Maximum Sustainable Yield, and ar e distributed through 
their natural range and cont ain full size/age range.  
HELCOM suffers from a weak capacity to im plement and enforce measures. The fisheries 
sector is not represented within HELCOM at an y level, where countries are represented at the 
highest level by Ministers of Environment.  HELCOM does not have the mandate to 
implement measures, implementation is left to  Member States, and HELCOM also lacks the 
mandate to enforce implementation.  
The strategic challenges specific to the BSR are the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic 
Sea Action Plan and the reduction of the eff ects of fishing on the Baltic ecosystem. 
2.1.1.3.  Hazardous substances 
Hazardous substances are a risk for the ma rine environment. They include organic 
contaminants and heavy metals, as well as ch emical weapons sunk in the Baltic Sea. Once 
released into the sea, hazardous substances ca n remain in the marine environment for very 
long periods and accumulate in the marine food web. Hazardous substances cause adverse 
effects in ecosystems, including health and repr oductive problems in animals, especially top 
predators. Contaminants may be hazardous becau se of their toxicity (acute and chronic 
effects, e.g. hormone-disruption, etc.), pers istence and bio-accumulating properties. For 
EN 9   EN example fish caught in some parts of the Baltic Sea, particularly herring and salmon; contain 
concentrations of dioxin that exceed maximum allowable levels  for foodstuffs as defined by 
the EU. Hazardous chemicals are still used for example in antifouling products and are released into the marine environment.  
Several hazardous substances or substance groups and two heavy metals have been identified 
as priorities. In addition, there are an es timated 40,000 tons of sunken chemical munitions, 
equivalent to approximately 13,000 tons of  toxic warfare agents. Although several EU 
Directives exist concerning hazardous substances, the sensitivity of the Baltic Sea due to the low level of water exchange with surrounding seas makes a BSR specific action particularly 
relevant in this case. 
HELCOM is the most important BSR ins titution dealing with hazardous substances. 
However, the industrial sector is not represented within H ELCOM and it does not have the 
mandate to implement measures, which are the re sponsibility of Member States, or to enforce 
implementation. In addition, dumped chemical weapons are not covered by the HELCOM BSAP. 
The strategic challenge specific to the BSR related to hazardous substances is the 
implementation of actions already agreed under HELCOM. 
2.1.1.4.  Pollution from ships 
Maritime transport is important for trade in the Baltic Sea Region. At any given moment over 
2000 ships are in the Baltic Sea. Both the numbe r and size of ships have been growing in 
recent years currently representing up to 15% of the world’s cargo tr affic. While it is 
considered a clean mode of transport, when m easured in emissions per tonnes of cargo, it is 
still a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. It  has environmental impacts in terms of air 
quality (in particular in ports and ports' citi es), introduction of alien species and wastewater, 
among others. Air pollution includes emissions of  sulphur oxides (on which progress has been 
made as the BSR is the first macro-region in the world to have become a ‘sulphur emission 
control area’) and nitrogen. 
Another problem is waste water from ships, esp ecially cruise liners and ferries. The discharge 
of waste water into the sea is allowed if ther e are inter alia onboard purification systems, but 
the waste water treatment currently required is not sufficient to reduce the nitrogen or 
phosphorus load from waste waters. In genera l existing legislation is not sufficient to 
adequately address pollution from ships in the Baltic Sea, which is particularly sensitive, 
given its semi-enclosed environment, and as su ch justifies action at the level of the BSR. 
Mandatory decisions regarding cl ean shipping are taken within the framework of the IMO and 
the EU, while additional voluntary commitments can be further taken at regional level for 
example at the level of the BSR (by Member States, HELCOM  or the shipping industry). 
Currently, the Baltic Sea Action Plan prepar ed by HELCOM and agre ed in November 2007 
by Member States foresees measures to prom ote clean shipping. The implementation of these 
measures is progressing, but suffers from the limitations of HELCOM already mentioned 
under previous headings. The strategic challeng e related to marine pollution from ships is 
implementation of actions already agreed under HELCOM. 
EN 10   EN 2.1.1.5.  Climate change 
Impacts of climate change may be significant in the long run due to the vulnerability of the 
natural environment and the significance of the climate for ecosystems. Many impacts are 
expected, both positive (such as increased agricultural yields)3 and negative (such as a change 
in species composition, new pests and diseases, winter floods,4 etc). Therefore adaptation to 
changing conditions will be nece ssary. Generally adaptation meas ures do not have significant 
cross-border spill-over effects, but macro-regional coopera tion is judged to be important in 
some cases, such as in coastal areas in the c ontext of the management of natural hazards due 
to the expected increase in extreme weather events and climate change. This issue is dealt 
with under the heading of safety and security . In other areas of adaptation, cooperation 
between countries will be limited mostly  to exchange of best practice.  
Although climate change adaptation is not seen as  a challenge of strate gic importance specific 
to the BSR, stakeholders have signalled the potential usefulness of increased cooperation. 
Various initiatives exist rega rding good practice on adaptation to the impacts of climate 
change in the BSR, but this has been largel y informal. Cooperation ex ists in the field of 
research, but there is no framework for c ooperation in adaptation actions. Adaptation to 
climate change is not mainstreamed into macroregional actions, e.g. investments in 
infrastructure, which indicates a lack of coordi nated and integrated appr oach between sectors. 
2.1.2.  Prosperity 
The theme of prosperity is particularly important  in terms of the wide disparities in relative 
wealth, employment and innovative capacity in the region. Cohesion policy is the primary 
instrument in the BSR aimed at reducing disparities and improving competitiveness. 
There are a broad range of orga nizations active in the field of economy (Higher Education, 
Research, Development and Innovation systems, En ergy) such as the Ba ltic Sea University 
Programme, Council of the Baltic Sea States, Ba ltic 21, the Adjacent Areas Programme of the 
Nordic Council of Ministers, Nordic Innovation  Centre, ScanBalt, NordForsk, the Baltic Sea 
States Sub-regional Cooperation, the Baltic  Development Forum, Baltic Metropoles, 
Euroregion Baltic, Union of the Baltic Ci ties, TEKES, VINNOVA, Baltic Sea Energy 
Cooperation. 
It is essential in the context of the current fina ncial crisis to ensure that new barriers are not 
created to the inte rnal market and that atte ntion continues to be fo cused on Lisbon priorities. 
The current crisis has heavily impacted on econom ies in the BSR. It will exacerbate structural 
weaknesses in economies and affect areas such as innovation and entrepreneurship which are 
the focus of the prosperity challenges in the BSR. Addressing the financial crisis is not a task in the first instance for macroregional collectiv e action. However, actions  linked to prosperity, 
accessibility and attractiveness will have to be aligned with the EU Recovery Package, in 
particular in relation to in vestment from Cohesion Policy. 
2.1.2.1.  Internal market and trade with neighbouring countries 
Despite the fact that all Member States are part  of the internal market, obstacles to trade in 
goods and services still exist at the practical level in the BSR. Markets in the BSR are, with 
                                                
 
3 JRC IPTS http://peseta.jrc.ec.eu ropa.eu/docs/Agriculture.html 
4 JRC IPTS http://peseta.jrc.ec.eu ropa.eu/docs/Riverfloods.html 
EN 11   EN the exception of Germany, relativ ely small. This puts restraints  on the growth of SMEs that 
need bigger markets to be able to expand and develop their business, resulting in reduced 
competitiveness in the long run. There are of ten significant differences between Member 
States in the implementation of Internal Ma rket Directives which results in unforeseen 
problems when exporting companies encounter dive rgent interpretations of  rules on different 
sides of the border. 
There are also administrative and non-tariff barri ers to trade and cross-border movement of 
goods between the EU and Russia, requiring imp rovement of customs and border control 
procedures and border crossing infrastructure . International tax cooperation, conditions for 
trade and investment, and efforts to combat cross-border tax fra ud and evasion in the area of 
taxation have also been identif ied as areas for improvement. 
Currently an ad-hoc group, the “Nordic-Baltic cooperation group”  for the Services Directive 
coordinates work at expert level between Memb er States on implementation of the Services 
Directive. The work of the group is considered useful and it is seen as efficient in achieving 
results at a practical level. However, si milar groups for goods and capital do not exist. 
Existing governance structures therefore do not cover the full ra nge of issues related to the 
implementation of the internal market. This is compounded by a lack of  coordination within 
sectors and geographical fragmentation of efforts. 
The strategic challenges related to the intern al market and trade with neighbouring countries 
specific to the Baltic Sea are th e removal of remaini ng hindrances to trade and maintenance of 
internal market principles (essential in curre nt crisis situation) by voluntary agreement on 
transposition and implementation of the Intern al Market Directives, and implementation of 
the EU-Russia strategy aimed at sustainable impr ovement and facilitation  of customs controls 
and coordination with actions taken by th e CBSS Working Group on Customs Cooperation 
and Border Crossing Aspects (WGCB). 
2.1.2.2.  Innovation  
Innovation  is a key to ensuring competitiveness in  the global economy. Th e Nordic Countries 
are among the leaders in the world in innovation performance. In contrast the Eastern BSR 
(E-BSR) countries lag behind in innovation performance, employme nt in the high tech sector, 
and show a general weakness in capitalising on high levels of popul ation with tertiary 
education. Spending on R&D is pa rticularly high in the Western BSR (W-BSR), significantly 
higher than the European average. However, a problem faced by the BSR as a whole, and in 
particular by the E-BSR is a failure to capita lize on achievements in research and innovation. 
The research taking place at universities is not capitalised, while the research taking place in 
most large companies is narrow in focus. Addr essing the problem of capitalizing research and 
innovation points towards the need for incr eased entrepreneurship in the E-BSR.  
Innovation is largely a matter fo r national policy. However, ther e is scope for cross-border 
clusters and innovation networks, particularly in the case of small countries in close proximity 
where spillover effects are prevalent, such as in the BSR. Linkages between East and West can play an important role in supporting cohesion policies. A lthough cooperation in 
innovation is not primarily a macroregional challenge  to be addressed at the level of the BSR, 
stakeholders, many of which have a strong focus on innovation, have shown a particular 
interest in developing c ooperation in the region. 
EN 12   EN There are already significant effo rts to cooperate on innovation in the region, such as the BSR 
INNONET, VINNOVA, efforts of the Baltic Development Forum, ScanBalt, etc. Other 
initiatives include BONUS ERA-NET, JOSEFI N (Joint SME Finance for Innovation), BSR 
CBP (Capacity Building Programme on Trans-Na tional Cluster and Innovation Systems in the 
Baltic Sea Region), BaSIC (Baltic Sea Innova tion Network Centres), SPIN (Sustainable 
Production through Innovation in Small and Medi um sized Enterprises), BaltMet Inno and 
BONUS 169 on research on the environment of the Baltic Sea, etc. However, while these initiatives demonstrate the great interest in th e region to co-operate on innovation, they also 
show how fragmented the co-operation is presen tly. There are no initiatives with a mandate to 
implement policies based on the results of the studi es and pilot projects that are carried out. 
The ScanBalt initiative in life  sciences has gone beyond the research phase but has not 
addressed the big "innovation gap"  that exists between the Nord ic countries and Germany and 
the three Baltic States and Poland in a strate gic way. There is a need to align funding of 
research activities along the lines of a common strategy. Curr ent governance structures do not 
enable collaborative research to be implemen ted and encourage geographic fragmentation of 
effort at the strategi c Baltic Sea level. 
There are no organizations res ponsible for coordination of innovation policy at the level of the 
BSR. The large number of project  level initiatives in the regi on, in the absence of a policy 
coordinating body results in a fragmentation of efforts and unclear responsibilities of the 
various initiatives.  
The strategic challenges related to innovation are to address the lack of a common BSR 
innovation strategy and to exploit the opportunities created by the wide disparities in current 
performance. 
2.1.2.3.  Entrepreneurship, SMEs, human resources 
The significant differences in the levels of socio-economic development between individual 
states are not conduc ive to economic integrati on of this area. More a nd closer integration as 
well as better conditions for entrepreneurs to  trade and do business with their neighbouring 
countries are needed. It is important to incr ease cooperation in areas  where the region is 
strong and has potential for further growth su ch as design and environmental technology. 
The proportion of population enrolled in tertiary education in the E-BSR is lower than in the 
W-BSR, and adult learning is also significantl y lagging behind W-BSR c ountries. In addition, 
the standard of universities in the E-BSR is often low when compared internationally. In 
contrast, the level of tertiary education in th e W-BSR is high, but thes e countries are facing a 
shortage of appropriate vocational skills. Althou gh Nordic Universities are of high quality in 
general, there is significan t scope for increasin g critical mass thr ough cooperation between 
universities. 
The BSR faces a common problem related to demographic change and migration. Some 
regions face severe population decline, in part icular in Northern Finl and and Sweden due to 
migration from already extremely sparsely po pulated rural areas to urban areas, with the 
largest decline aff ecting the young population
 and migration from the E-BSR to other 
countries is also a significant issue. Mi gration between E-BS R and W-BSR is of 
macroregional significance. There is a significant potential for matching up between labour markets and education, increasing competition and e fficiency in the labour market. It is also, 
however, causing a (perhaps tem porary) challenge to the economies of the E-BSR, and in 
particular the Baltic States, as it results in  a shortage of skills which in turn reduces 
EN 13   EN competitiveness. Lack of information for employers and employees regarding qualifications, 
skills, working conditions etc. that makes the individual decisions less optimal is not being 
addressed at the level of the BSR. Policy de cisions on education matching programs and so on 
are also made without considera tion to the labour market situa tion in the other BSR countries. 
Current governance structures do not permit effective coordination of labour market issues at 
the level of the BSR, nor with other relevant policies such as education.  
The strategic challenges related to entrepreneur ship, SMEs and human re sources specific to 
the BSR are the development of cooperation re lated to labour mobili ty, trade, foreign 
investments, and design. 
2.1.2.4.  Agriculture, fishing and forestry 
In the Baltic Sea Region, farming, forestry, an d fishing are important to the economy and 
sustainable development. Keeping these sectors profitable and competitive is a key factor in 
securing the future sustainabl e development of the region.  
The forestry sector is important as an economic  base for regional develo pment in some of the 
countries and regions surrounding the Baltic Sea, e.g. Finland, Sweden and Poland. The 
majority of the Baltic fishing fleet is subjec t to overcapacity and profitability problems. The 
number of vessels fishing for the many dwindling stocks is too high to sustain economic 
profit in the sector. The rapi d technical development on ve ssels has further increased 
efficiency and worsened the problem. The rural areas in the north of the region are some of 
the most sparsely populated areas in the EU. At  the same time other rural areas within the 
region face pressure from urbanisation. Cons equently the needs and challenges for rural 
development vary, although many of the problems are still common, for example 
competitiveness, environmental deterioration and de-population of rural areas negatively 
affecting both agricu lture and forestry. 
Cooperation at the macro-regional level in fore stry issues is currently weak. However, 
stakeholders have shown an interest in develo ping cooperation in this sector. There is also a 
low level of cooperation in issues  concerning the agricultural sect or, with the exception of the 
issue of nutrient loads of the Baltic Sea from fertilizer use in agriculture, where cooperation 
exists but is of limited success,  as described earlier. The cu rrent governance structures do not 
allow sufficient scope for coordinati on between countries and sectors. 
In addition to the issues related to governance of  fisheries highlighted in earlier sections, there 
are specific challenges related to coordinating work on the reduction of discards and control 
of illegal fishing. 
2.1.3.  Accessibility and attractiveness 
Organizations focusing on trans port, communication and touris m include the Council of the 
Baltic Sea States, Baltic 21, Baltic Sea St ates Sub-regional Cooperation, the Baltic 
Development Forum and the Baltic Sea Tourism Commission. 
2.1.3.1.  Energy security, energy market in tegration and energy efficiency 
Energy markets (electricity, gas, fuel, etc) in the BSR are nationally oriented instead of being 
linked and coordinated within th e region since cross-border infr astructure is often lacking. 
EN 14   EN BASREC5 provides member countries w ith a forum to build up a re gional view of  the energy 
policy strategies. However, the three Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), with the 
exception of a power cable Estli nk between Finland and Estonia, are not integrated into the 
wider energy networks of the region and to the rest of th e European Union. These Member 
States are hence practically isolated in the fi eld of energy and can be seen as an 'energy 
island'. This has implications for both competition in the energy market and energy security. Security of energy supply is also  affected by low levels of ener gy efficiency in some countries 
in the BSR, and the low level of diversification of energy sources. A Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan has already been agreed among the Member States concerned. This plan, 
in addition to infrastructure projects, also includes specific steps in order to achieve an 
integrated and functioning internal market for energy in the Baltic Sea Region. The European Council backed the development of th is plan in its conclusions of 16
th October, 2008.  
The EU – Russia Energy Dialogue, established in  2000 is the main instrument to address 
major issues of mutual concern in the energy sector and strengthen co operation with Russia 
on issues related to sustainability and continued reliability of production, distribution, transportation and efficient use of energy.  
Currently there is a lack of institutions with a mandate to coordinate within the BSR on policy 
harmonization, decide on common principles for grid operation including technical details 
related to market functioning, and make proposals in the area of grid investments. Issues 
related to insufficient coordination at the implementation level of TENs also exist. Current governance structures do not provi de sufficient scope for coordina tion within the sector at the 
level of implementation, resulting in non-ali gnment of funding with political priorities 
The strategic challenge specific to the BSR is the need for an integrated and well functioning 
internal market for energy. 
2.1.3.2.  Internal and extern al transport links 
In the Baltic Sea Region, transport is particularly important as the distances – internally and to 
the rest of Europe and the wider world – are gr eat and the conditions for transport are difficult 
(forests, lakes, snow and ice in  the winter, etc.). The region, which is located on the periphery 
of the economic centre of Europe, depends stro ngly on foreign trade in goods and needs well 
functioning transport infrastructure for its ec onomic growth. Moreover, the Baltic Sea is a 
sensitive ecosystem which makes it even more essential to factor in environmental considerations in the development of transport infrastructures. 
Passenger transport in the region is increasingly dependent on ro ad and air transport at the 
expense of rail and maritime transport. This  contributes to capacity  problems on the road 
network in many parts of the re gion. In the context of integration of regions at a macro-
regional level, high speed rail networks betwee n major cities provide a jump in accessibility, 
compared with road networks for example, due to faster journey times.  
The emphasis on freight transport is also shifting in the European policy context from road to 
rail, sea and inland water. However, currently the transport of goods by rail in the BSR is declining. Transport issues which are of macroreg ional relevance in this  context are the lack 
                                                
 
5 BASREC includes the Governments of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Russia and Sweden.  
EN 15   EN of intermodal exchanges, lack of rail interope rability, and slow progr ess on railway projects 
such as the Rail Baltica. Shifts in transport modes in both passenger a nd freight transport are 
resulting in increased greenhouse gases emissions. 
The main challenge with regard to the future transport development in the Baltic Sea Region 
is to improve the accessibility in connecting ma rkets of the European Union and the countries 
of the Community of Independent  States (CIS) and further on to Asia. Spatial connections 
with the Southeast Mediterranean area are also of particular importance.  
Trans European Networks - Transport (TEN -T) policy aims generally at ensuring the 
functioning of the in ternal market as well as economic a nd social cohesion in the EU through 
realising a number of strategi c priority projects. The Northe rn Dimension Partnership on 
Transport and Logistics, curren tly under preparati on and operational from the beginning of 
2010, will be a new regional cooperation forum, combining both the transport and logistics 
policies and coordinating infrastr ucture projects. The TENs are c oordinated at policy level but 
not sufficiently at the level of implementation as the funding of the different segments (on 
each Member States’ territory) is  decided nationally, and experience to date has shown that 
Member States do not always respect their commitments in implementing TEN-T projects. 
Moreover, there is no formal co-ordination of investment in transport infrastructure at any 
intermediate levels. In the absence of suitable institutions and incentives this practice is not 
likely to change, despite better coordination.  
The strategic challenges specific to the BSR ar e therefore the low level of coordination of 
national transport pol icies and infrastructure investment.  
2.1.3.3.  Attractiveness for citizens and tourists 
The quality of life has a high reputation in the BSR due to good higher education provision, 
preserved cultural heritage, high nature value landscapes and open societies. But there is a 
growing trend for young educated  people to study and work outsi de the BSR. The leakage of 
skills could be reduced by encouraging greater m obility within the region. The wide variation 
in sickness and accident rates ac ross the region indi cate opportunities for cooperative actions 
to bring real improvements in quality of life. 
Large areas of considerable natu ral beauty are also found in the BSR with tourism providing a 
great opportunity to support regional developm ent. However, given the small size of many 
countries, tourism lacks critical mass and identity as a location. 
There is currently little cooperation within th e BSR on issues related to tourism. However, 
stakeholders in the BSR feel that increased c ooperation and combined marketing of the region 
can increase the critical mass of the region as a tourist destina tion and attract more tourists. 
They have also signalled the importance of coor dination actions such as increasing student 
exchange and an environmentally frie ndly tourist strategy for the BSR.  
No strategic challenges have been identified.  
2.1.4.  Safety and security 
The organizations active in the field of safety and security include the Council of Baltic Sea 
States (in safety, but not in security ma tters), HELCOM (in questions concerning the 
environment), Task Force on Organised Crime in the Baltic Sea Region, and Baltic Sea 
Region Border Control Cooperation, among others. 
EN 16   EN 2.1.4.1.  Cross-border crime 
The criminal dynamics of the BSR are mostly influenced by the Region's position between 
countries supplying cigarettes and synthetic drugs precursors and significant destination 
countries for cigarettes, synthetic drugs, coca ine and hashish. The BS R presents attractive 
opportunities to organised crime from the EU but also to groups originating from the 
neighbouring countries such as Ru ssia, Belarus, and Ukraine. 
An important feature of the re gion is the existence of borde rs between the EU and Russia. 
This border separates two very different types of  legislation, including differences in excise 
policies, and makes cross border law enfo rcement cooperation sometimes lengthy and 
cumbersome. Therefore the border can also be seen to facilitate certain organised crime groups and markets. A further facilitator for trad e fraud in this region is  the large volume of 
transport across the borders and other vul nerabilities in the logistics sector. 
Cooperation is developed in the BSR on the basi s of the Baltic Sea Region Border Control 
Cooperation. Joint Police Stations and Polic e and Customs Cooperati on Centres have only 
been set up at the bord er between Germany and Poland. This involves facilitating exchange of 
information, joint operation and controls  and planning of coordinated actions. 
There is a sectoral division of  competencies on law enforcem ent matters without sufficient 
integration of functions and tasks, e.g. betw een the Baltic Sea Task Force on Organised 
Crime, Baltic Sea Region Border Control Cooperation, CBSS bodies, HELCOM, Frontex, 
Europol, and Eurojust. Cooperation between certai n sectoral law enforcement authorities in 
the BSR is relatively well advanced, while othe rs have experienced challenges in adapting to 
changes in the crime combating environment. However, there is a lack of coordination 
between policies and a consequent fragmentation of  effort. Because of the transborder nature 
of many criminal activities it is important to ensure that third countries in the region are 
provided with opportunities to exchange informa tion and experience, sin ce this is not fully 
developed. 
The strategic challenges specific to the BSR ar e related to the operati onal cooperation of law 
enforcement authorities (customs, police, bor der guard) in the fight  against cross border 
crime. 
2.1.4.2.  Maritime safety 
Due to its strategic posi tion, the BSR is a natural route for o il transport, in particular from 
Russia. Between 2000 and 2007, oil shipments via the Great Belt more than doubled to reach 
171 mt/yr. This growth is expect ed to continue to be significan t in the near future. There is 
also an increasing trend towards transport of liquefied natural gas by tankers. These activities 
carry risks for the environment, especially in difficult winter conditions (frozen seaways). In 
2007 there were 120 ship accidents in the Baltic Sea. Serious risks to the environment arise from the possibility of accidental  spillage of hazardous substances  or illegal discharges into 
the sea. A shipping accident causes a threat to  the marine environment through spillage of 
bunker oil.  
The transposition of IMO rules into the EU lega l system ensures their enforcement across the 
entire European Union. The Baltic Sea was designa ted in 2005 as a particularly sensitive sea 
area (PSSA). Specific measures can  be used to control the maritim e activities in the area, such 
as routing measures, installation of Vessel Tra ffic Services (VTS), and the introduction of 
Mandatory Reporting Systems (MRS). Many regional initiatives at Member  State level relate 
EN 17   EN to Automatic Identification System (AIS) data sharing systems, e.g. the Helsinki 
Commission's AIS network and the Gulf of Finland Reporting System (GOFREP). 
For marine pollution a Community information sy stem exists to exchange data between the 
Member States on intervention capacity and meas ures taken in the event of accidental or 
deliberate marine pollution. HELCOM conducts comparable activities at sea basin level. 
HELCOM works as a co-ordinating body, ascertain ing multilateral response in case of major 
maritime incidents in the Baltic Sea.  
No single surveillance system has a complete overview of all vessels within the Baltic Sea; 
rather, the different existing systems cover diffe rent sub-sets of maritime traffic according to 
their needs. In addition to tec hnological fragmentation, the admi nistrative structure of national 
authorities dealing with surveillance is vari ed and complex. In some countries, such as 
Denmark, coordination of maritime affairs has been established on the basis of specific administrative structures. Others, such as Germ any, appear to have more complex structures. 
Cross border cooperation relating to surveillance al so appears not to be ca rried out at the same 
level in all sectors of offshore activities (customs, border contro l, pollution res ponse, fisheries 
control, maritime safety, maritime security, vessel traffic management, accident and disaster response, search and rescue, law enforcement) in the Baltic Sea. There is  therefore a lack of 
coordination within and between sectors, and consequent fragme ntation of effort. 
The strategic challenges in the BSR related to maritime safety are the fragmentation of 
surveillance tools and technological standards fo r the maritime transport of energy products.  
2.1.4.3.  Major emergencies on sea and on land 
Transport by sea is expected to increase drama tically in the coming years in the Baltic Sea 
and with that comes a higher risk for accidents. Major emergencies, other than ship accidents 
already covered in the section on Maritime Safe ty, with cross border ef fects can result from 
natural and man-made disasters, acts of terrori sm including chemical, biological, radiological 
and nuclear terrorism, and technological, radiol ogical or environmental accidents as well as 
health threats from communi cable and non-communicable diseases. The economic impacts of 
disasters may adversely affect the economic growth and competitiveness of EU regions. 
Winter storm Gudrun (Erwin) that battered north ern Europe in January 2005 exposed the lack 
of prevention and preparedness for weather borne hazards that already today pose a threat to the countries around the Baltic Sea. Climate change is expect ed to increase the likelihood of 
extreme weather events in the short term future. 
While cooperation between agencies involved in  response to marine pollution accidents is 
relatively well advanced in the region, there is scope for strengthening some of the existing 
actions, such as common approaches to con tingency planning which can still be further 
developed. While work has been done at mob ilising assistance in response to disasters 
through the Community Civil Protection Mechan ism, and additional support is available 
through the European Maritime Safety Agency (E MSA), there is still scope for assuring that 
preparedness and response capacities are sufficient.  
The strategic challenge specific to the BSR is the implementation of the work programme of 
the HELCOM Response group. 
EN 18   EN 2.2. Existing governance structures 
There are a large number of regional organizatio ns in the Baltic Sea Region with the aim of 
making macro-regional collective ac tion possible, covering either th e entire region or parts of 
the region, focusing on different themes and act ivities. Among the exis ting structures some 
are concerned with a wide range of activities, others are focused on a narrow set of objectives.  
In this section a brief introducti on is provided to regi onal organizations in the BSR (the list is 
non-exhaustive). The assessment is not intended as a criticism of existing institutions, but 
rather an identification of where there is  scope for more effective collective action. 
2.2.1.  General cooperation 
Different organizations and st ructures with a wide thema tic coverage can be found in 
geographically overlapping regions, in part or all of the BSR. Five regional councils  operate 
in the region. 
The Nordic Council (NC) and the Nord ic Council of Ministers (NCM) , whose members 
are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Swed en, deals with neighbouring countries (i.e. 
Russia and the Baltic States) through the Adjacent Area Framework Programme. Their main focus is on culture, education and resear ch, business, energy an d regional policy, and 
neighbourhood cooperation, with an additional fo cus on equality, legal cooperation, labour, 
social and health policy, economic and financ ial policy, environment, use of resources 
(fishery, landuse, food, forest ry) and removing border obsta cles. Their members meet 
regularly, it has a permanent secretariat and operates with an annual budget of DKK 830m, mainly received from governments (contributions are calculated according to GNP). 
The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)  is an overall regional forum for 
intergovernmental cooperation. Its members ar e Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia,  Poland, Germany, Russia and the European Commission. The 
Baltic Sea Summit, held in Riga in June 2008, endorsed a reform package which mentions 
five priorities of long-term cooperation for the CBSS: environment, economic development, 
energy, education and culture, and civil security and the human dimension. The Council 
consists of Member State Fore ign Ministers and a member of  the European Commission. The 
CBSS does not have a general budget and project  funding is on project-by-project basis. 
Members are responsible for funding common activ ities and/or for seeking and coordinating 
financing from other sources.  
In addition, the Baltic Council of Ministers (BCM)  is an institution for facilitating the 
cooperation between the government s of Estonia, Latvia and Li thuania. It was formally 
established in its present structure in 1994.  It is complemented by the Baltic Assembly (BA)  
which promotes cooperation betwee n the parliaments of the Estoni a, Latvia and Lithuania.The 
remaining two regional councils in the north  focus mainly on the Arctic Region. The Barents 
Euro-Arctic Council  (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norw ay, Sweden, European Commission, 
Russia) focuses on culture, i ndigenous people, health, educa tion, research, environment, 
nuclear safety, industrial and economic de velopment, energy and transport. The Arctic 
Council  (AC) (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norwa y, Sweden, USA, Canada, Russia) focuses 
on indigenous people, health, environment and transport.
EN 19   EN Table 1. Thematic overlaps between the four council formations in the North  
 NC CBSS BEAC AC 
Democracy and human rights  x   
Culture x  x  
Indigenous people   x x 
Health x  x x 
Education and research x x x  
Environment  x  x x 
Nuclear safety   x x  
Industrial and economic development  x x x  
Energy  x  x  
Transport    x x 
The Northern Dimension  (ND) partners are the European  Union, Iceland, Norway and the 
Russian Federation. These partners have defined actors as the Regional Councils in the North: 
the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC), the C ouncil of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), the 
Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM) and the Arctic Council (AC) and the international 
financing institutions active in the North, not ably the EBRD, EIB, NIB and IBRD. The ND 
focuses on economic cooperation, including promoti on of trade, investments, customs, SMEs, 
business, innovation, well-functioning labour mark ets, financial services, infrastructure, 
energy, agriculture, forestry, transport and lo gistics, telecommunications and information 
technology, freedom, security and justice, extern al security, research, education and culture, 
environment, nuclear safety and natural resources, social welfare and health.  
In addition to the high level cooperation between the countries of the BSR inherent to council 
formations, there are also other organi zations with a wide thematic focus. The Baltic Sea 
States Subregional Co-operation is a political network for regional authorities in the BSR 
from Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway and 
the Russian Federation. It focuse s on transport and infrastructure , maritime policy, sustainable 
development, security (trafficking in human beings), Northern Dimension and cooperation 
with Russia, and youth policy. The main forum fo r the organization is its annual conference. 
It has a board consisting of two representa tives of each country. There is no permanent 
secretariat, its work is based around ad -hoc working groups and rapporteurs.  
The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference has working groups on energy and climate 
change, labour markets and social welfare as we ll as a rapporteur on eutrophication. It has an 
annual conference, with a standing committee be tween annual conferences. The members of 
the standing committee are appointed from th e Nordic Council, Germany, Russia, Poland, the 
country hosting the conference, Baltic Asse mbly, and the European Parliament.  
Agenda 21 for Baltic Sea Region  is a stakeholder forum for sustainable development. Its 
members are the CBSS states, the European Co mmission and a number of intergovernmental 
organisations, international financial institutions and international networks of regional and local authorities, businesses and NGOs. Baltic 21 focuses on agriculture, energy, fisheries, forests, industry, tourism, transport a nd education, as well as  spatial planning.  
EN 20   EN 2.2.2.  Assessment of macro-regional structures 
Inefficiencies in the existing general and thema tic governance structures  described above stem 
from two main sets of problems. Firstly ther e are general weaknesses of intergovernmental 
organizations: 
• The need to make unanimous decisions in an intergovernmental process which often 
narrows the scope of decisions which can be made. Decisions are consensual and therefore 
often do not result in a maximum of net benef its across the region, but reflect the lowest 
common denominator. 
• Lack of capability/no mandate to enforce im plementation of decisions by Member States, 
lack of capability to sanction non-compliance. 
• Lack of capability to implemen t decisions. Many have an institutional structure which does 
not include a permanent secretariat, or nece ssitates approval of funding on a project by 
project basis, often based on voluntary contributions. Th erefore intergovernmental 
organizations generally do not have the capacity at the macro-regional level to allocate 
resources to implement agreed actions.  
Secondly, there are many organizations which pursue the same objectives, or different 
specific objectives within the same theme, or different but strongly interlinked objectives. 
This results in inefficiencies due to: 
• Duplication of effort : Some issues are dealt with by di fferent organizations simultaneously 
which results in unnecessary efforts to gather and analyse information, identify problems 
and find solutions. 
• Fragmentation of po licies and objectives : There are many inter-linkages within and 
between different objectives (within e.g. trans port policy between rail and road transport, 
or between policies e.g. trans port and environment, education and labour market, etc.). 
Lack of coordination of policies may result in efficiency loss due to conflicting objectives 
being pursued by different orga nizations and the fact that optimal trade-offs between 
different objectives cannot be made.  
• No mandate to take decisions with signi ficant impacts outside narrow focus of 
organization : In addition, an organization with a narrow thematic mandate will not be able 
to take decisions in questions which cut across several themes. 
• Unclear responsibilities : If several organizations are re sponsible for achieving results, the 
responsibility for failure to make pr ogress on an issue is not evident. 
There is reason in some cases for the overlaps identified, because firstly different 
organizations have different geogr aphic coverage, and thus there is  a rationale for coverage of 
similar themes, and secondly in certain cases he adlines and themes may be the same, but in 
fact different specific activities are covered under these headlines. However, there is no 
overarching organisational framework in wh ich these problems can be addressed and 
resolved.  
An issue highlighted in the analysis of a number of initiatives is the limitation of what can be 
achieved at a sectoral level. A clear example is  the case of the environment, where other key 
actors are responsible for decisions that have an important impact on eu trophication or stocks 
EN 21   EN of natural resources. Annex 4 summarises th e linkages between sectoral actions and the 
potential trade-offs between diffe rent sectoral objectives such as transport and environment, 
or increased economic integration and manageme nt of security. This calls for mechanisms 
that can reduce trade-offs and encourage win-win situations such as energy efficiency. A key issue for the governance of the Baltic Sea Regi on is the capacity to develop an integrated 
approach to solving cr oss-sectoral problems. 
2.3. Summary of problem definition for the Baltic Sea Region  
2.3.1.  Challenges for the Baltic Sea Region 
The Baltic Sea Region is a highly heterogeneous area in  economic, environmental and 
cultural terms, yet its members share many co mmon resources and dem onstrate considerable 
interdependence. This means that actions in on e area can very quickly have consequences for 
other parts or the w hole of the region.  
For each of the main themes, there are chal lenges that cannot be sufficiently addressed 
through Member State action alone . EU policies provide the ma in framework through which 
these challenges can be addressed. However, in  a number of areas, count ries in the region 
wish to achieve on a voluntary basis higher standards than those required by EU law. 
Alternatively, the flexibility or subsidiarity under the EU framework allows Member States to pursue individual strategies which are sub-optimal for the region as a whole. In some cases, a 
group of Member States have put in place voluntary arrangements to address these challenges. However, due to a lack of binding commitments,  sanctions or a cross- sectoral focus these 
arrangements are considered to be ineffective.  Finally, the involvement of third countries in 
collective problem solving must take place within  specific structures such as the Northern 
Dimension. These challenges express themselv es in different ways under each theme: 
• The environmental challenges  identified in the region are eutrophication, marine 
biodiversity, hazardous substances, pollution from ships and climate change. There is a 
relatively solid consensus in the BSR region to  work collectively to address the specific 
problems of the Baltic Sea through HELCOM. However, HELCOM is limited in its mandate to implement and enforce measures. Fu rthermore, many of the sectoral interests 
such as fishing, agriculture, industry and th e maritime sector, whose activities drive the 
state of the environment, are not involved. It is unlikely that this problem can be solved 
without a more integrated approach to the problems of the environment and a stronger 
political commitment to implement HELCOM actions. 
• The prosperity challenges are linked to in ternal market and trade with neighbouring 
countries, innovation, entrepreneurship, SMEs and human resources, ag riculture, forestry 
and fisheries. Cross border structures to ad dress challenges linked to the single market, 
innovation and labour markets are less developed than  in other areas. This reflects in part 
the strong role of the national and EU level in addressing the problems. However, for a 
number of issues, there is a strong desire by stakeholders to strengthen links across the 
region, in particular to addr ess strong differences in econo mic performance between the 
East and West. There is an argument fo r increasing cooperatio n at the level of 
implementation of EU policies, such as the internal market. 
• The accessibility and attractiveness challenges are linked to energy security, energy market 
integration and energy efficiency, internal and external transport links  and attractiveness 
for citizens and tourists. In the case of en ergy and transport netw orks, while there are 
EN 22   EN strategic frameworks for identifying priorities, th ere is a lack of political  will to ensure that 
national decisions correspond to shared needs, accompanied by lack of coordination at the 
level of implementation, and non-alig nment of national and EU funds. 
• The safety and security challenges have been  identified as cross border crime, maritime 
safety and security and major emergencies at sea and on land. There are many initiatives in 
this field at national, regional and EU level. However, this leads to sectoral and geographic 
fragmentation in some areas. HELCOM is resp onsible for certain issues linked to major 
maritime accidents. 
Furthermore, there are political economy considerations  in addressing the collective 
challenges of the region. To ensure the success of collective action in the BSR there is a need 
to engage all Member States in  the process. This may involve  reinforcing the commitment of 
stakeholders in actions which ar e not necessarily seen as a priority fo r them. Challenges under 
the environment objective are generally seen  as more important in the W-BSR while 
challenges under the prosperity heading are seen as more important in the E-BSR.  
As the preceding analysis suggests, the key pr oblem in the region is not a lack of existing 
initiatives or governance structures. It is rather  the failure of the larg ely fragmented existing 
governance structures to provide  a sufficiently robust framework in which the priority issues 
of the Baltic Sea Region can be addressed in an  integrated manner that addresses potential 
policy conflicts and trade-offs between sectors. Collective act ion must therefore provide a 
framework in which stakeholders can make a st ep change in taking the actions necessary to 
realise the region’s full economic, envi ronmental and social potential. 
2.3.2.  The case for action at EU level 
Most of the challenges identified above fall wi thin the scope of EU policies. These policies 
are almost all shared competencies. When th e treaties confer on the Union a competence 
shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union a nd Member States may legislate 
and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States sh all exercise their competence 
to the extent that the Union ha s not exercised its competence. 
In the context of the Baltic Sea Strategy, no le gislative action by the Union is proposed. The 
strategy takes place exclusively within the context of existing EU legislation and relates to 
voluntary commitments undertaken by Member St ates. The strategy and action plan have 
been brought forward at the request of the Member States and third countries concerned. 
However, in order to ensure compatibility  and complementarity with EU policies the 
following table summarises the link between ch allenges, the case for public intervention, the 
EU policy area and type of competence and the scope for action at Baltic Sea region level.6 
                                                 
6 Intervention is consistent with EU goals and priorities: Environment: Community policy on the 
environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives: preserving, protecting and 
improving the quality of the environment, (…) promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. (Ar ticle 174 EC Treaty) Pr osperity, accessibility and 
attractiveness: Promoting a high degree of compe titiveness and convergence of economic performance 
(Article 2 EC Treaty); Strengthening economic and so cial cohesion. Under the EC  Treaty (Article 158), 
this is to be achieved through reducing disparitie s between different levels of development of the 
various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions or islands, including rural areas; To help achieve the objectives referred to in Article s 14 and 158 and to enable citizens of the Union, 
economic operators and regional and local communities to derive full benefit from the setting-up of an 
area without internal frontiers, the Community shall contribute to the establishment and development of 
EN 23   EN Table 2. Case for intervention to address identified priority challenges 
Challenge Case for public intervention Policy Area Competence7 Scope for Action 
at Baltic Sea Level 
Eutrophication Market failure (common pool 
resource), Environmental 
legislation Environment 
Agriculture Shared 
Shared Strategic 
Marine biodiversity Market failure (tragedy of the 
commons), CFP Environment 
Conservation 
of Marine 
Resources 
Fisheries Shared 
Community 
 
Shared Strategic 
Hazardous 
substances Market failure (tragedy of the 
commons) Environment Shared Strategic 
Pollution from ships Market failure (common pool 
resource) Environment Shared Strategic 
Climate change  Market failure (public good), 
Environmental legislation, 
international commitments Environment 
Energy Shared 
Shared Cooperation 
Internal market and 
trade with 
neighbouring 
countries EU treaty objective Internal 
market Shared Strategic 
Innovation Market failure (knowledge 
spillover positive externality), 
EU objective (Lisbon) Industry Member State Strategic 
Entrepreneurship, 
SMEs, human resources EU objective (Lisbon) Indust ry Member State Strategic 
Agriculture, 
fisheries, forestry Sustainability of sectors has a 
public good/common good 
aspect Agriculture Shared Strategic 
Energy security, 
energy market 
integration and energy efficiency Energy security public good, 
Market failure (absence of 
competitive market) if energy markets not integrated, EU 
objective (internal market) Energy Shared Strategic 
Internal and external 
transport links Market failure, EU objective 
(internal market) TENS Shared Strategic 
Attractiveness for 
citizens and tourists Economies of scale Tourism Member State Cooperative 
Cross border crime Safety and security public good, 
regulatory failure, 
Customs/security policy Justice and 
Home 
Affairs Shared Strategic 
Maritime safety and 
security Safety and security public good, 
regulatory failure Maritime 
Affairs Community/ 
Shared Strategic 
                                                                                                                                                         
trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures. 
(Article 154 TEC) Safety and security: Preserving  peace and international security and promoting 
international co-operation objectives of the Comm on Foreign and Security Policy (TEU, Article 11); 
Safeguarding the security of citizens, or citizens’ rights recognised by th e Treaty. This includes 
preventing and combating crime a nd terrorism (TEU, Article 29) 
7 As stated in the draft Treaty of Lisbon 
EN 24   EN  
Challenge Case for public intervention Policy Area Competence8 Scope for Action 
at Baltic Sea Level 
Major emergencies 
at sea and on land Safety and security public good Civil 
Protection 
Environment Member State 
 
Shared Strategic 
The need to improve governance in areas wh ere the EU has significant competences (e.g. 
fisheries and agriculture and the internal mark et) is often related to a lack of sufficient 
coordination between sectors (e .g. between fisheries and environment, or agriculture and 
environment) in the context of the particularly sensitive environment of the Baltic Sea. There is therefore a particular challenge to ensure coordination, where Member States wish to go 
beyond actions and targets set at EU level. In this respect, the adeq uate involvement of 
institutions at the EU level is important in  ensuring policy integrat ion and coherence with 
community policies. 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
The European Council invited the Commission to  present an EU strategy for the Baltic Sea 
region which should inter alia  help to address environmental challenges related to the Baltic 
Sea. However, the problem analysis also suggested other challenges for collective action in the BSR. Other objectives in addition to the en vironmental objective were  identified based on 
public consultation and non-papers submitted by countries in the BSR and narrowed down by 
the analysis of problems according to whether th ere is need for further action, and whether the 
issue is of macro-re gional relevance.  
The general objective  of the strategy is therefore to ad dress macro-regional challenges faced 
by the region in order to strengthen the region 's ability to exploit its socio-economic and 
environmental potential so that it becomes a more  environmentally sustai nable and prosperous 
place, benefiting from increased accessibility a nd attractiveness and ensuring higher standards 
of safety and security for its citizens.
  
The specific objective  is to develop a framework for th e individual challenges and address 
deficiencies in governance structures  to ensure that a range of st rategic actions (in the form of 
an action plan) to deal with the challenges are im plemented in the most efficient, effective and 
coherent way. To achieve this it will be necessary to achieve three objectives: 
• improved coordination and coherence : clarification of existing overlaps and definition of 
roles, an integrated approach which take s into consideration interactions between 
objectives, improved coordinati on of spending priorities; 
• strengthened institutional capability to ensure implementa tion of actions : including 
mandate to decide on action in a wide range of issues, etc.; 
• improved visibility and accountability : monitoring and evaluation of results, 
enforcement of action and review and update of the EUSBSR (instruments for ensuring 
                                                 
8 As stated in the draft Treaty of Lisbon 
EN 25   EN compliance in an international context are few,  and are limited mainly to peer pressure, 
therefore improvements in this re spect can only be marginal). 
The following table summarises the relationshi p between the individual challenges, the 
governance objectives and the proposed strategic actions. 
Table 3. Summary of governance objectives and actions for identified priority challenges 
Challenge Further activities Govern ance objectives Strategic actions 
I. Environment 
Eutrophication Action already 
agreed upon in 
HELCOM Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or 
implement 
Address lack of capacity to 
make trade-offs between 
environmental and economic issues Implement actions already agreed 
to reduce nutrients 
Promote measures and practices 
which reduce nutrient losses and 
thereby address eutrophication 
when reviewing the Common Agricultural Policy 
Marine biodiversity Action already 
agreed upon in 
HELCOM Address lack of capacity to 
make trade-offs between 
environmental and economic issues  
Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or implement environmental 
considerations 
 Implement the HELCOM Baltic 
Sea Action Plan 
Reduce the effects of fishing on the Baltic ecosystem 
Hazardous substances For most but not all 
relevant hazardous 
substances action 
already agreed upon in HELCOM Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or 
implement 
Address lack of capacity to make trade-offs between 
environmental and economic 
issues Implement actions already agreed 
to reduce hazardous substances 
Pollution from ships Action already 
agreed upon in 
HELCOM Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or 
implement Address lack of capacity to 
make trade-offs between 
environmental and economic issues Implement actions already agreed 
to reduce ship pollution 
Climate change Existing policy 
target, new actions 
required Address lack of coordination 
between sectors 
Address low level of coordination none 
II. Prosperity   
Internal market and 
trade with 
neighbouring countries Coordinated 
implementation of 
EU Directive Address lack of coordination 
on some issues of 
implementation Implement the strategy aimed at 
sustainable improvement and 
facilitation of controls at the border 
Coordinate with actions taken by 
the CBSS Working Group on Customs Cooperation and Border 
Crossing Aspects (WGCB) 
Removal of remaining hindrances 
to trade and defence of the 
Internal Market principles by voluntary agreement on 
transposition and implementation 
EN 26   EN Challenge Further activities Govern ance objectives Strategic actions 
of the Internal Market Directives 
Innovation  Some existing 
action, lack of 
coordination on 
incentives Address cooperation and 
coordination among 
organizations at the policy 
level Address lack of capacity to 
implement  Establish a common BSR 
innovation strategy 
Exploit opportunities created by 
the current disparities in performance 
Entrepreneurship, SMEs, human resources Coordinated 
implementation of actions signalled as 
important by 
stakeholders Address lack of coordination 
at policy level between MS in particular in labour market Increase labour mobility 
Promote trade and attract more investments into the Baltic Sea 
Region 
Make the Baltic Sea region a 
leader in design 
Agriculture, fisheries, 
forestry Action already 
agreed upon in HELCOM Address lack of coordination 
between sectoral policies in particular for agriculture and 
fisheries Reduce discards 
Improve control and stop illegal fishing 
III. Accessibility and attractiveness   
Energy security, 
energy market integration and energy 
efficiency  Existing activities, 
some new activities needed which are 
planned but not 
implemented Address lack of coordination 
at implementation level of TENs 
Address limited scope of 
existing initiatives Address lack of coordination 
at policy level Establish an integrated and well 
functioning internal market for energy 
Internal and external transport links Existing activities, 
some new activities needed which are 
planned but not 
implemented Address lack of coordination 
at implementation level Address limited scope of 
existing initiatives Coordinate national transport 
policies and infrastructure investments 
Attractiveness for 
citizens and tourists  Address lack of coordination 
between MS none 
IV. Safety and Security   
Cross-border crime Enhanced 
cooperation on procedures for 
operational matters Address lack of coordination 
within and between authorities in different 
sectors; 
Address limited scope of existing initiatives Establish joint customs, border, 
and police procedures for operational matters 
Maritime safety Enhancement of 
existing activities Address coordination 
between sectors and 
fragmentation of effort Commonly apply surveillance 
tools 
Ensuring the fleet transporting energy products is up to the 
highest technological standards 
Major emergencies at 
sea and on land Implementation of 
existing HELCOM work programme 
and enhance 
cooperation procedures. Address lack of cooperation 
in some areas Implement the work programme 
of the HELCOM Response group 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
The challenges identified above point toward s the need for increased coordination and 
cooperation between different se ctors and between Member Stat es, as well as the need for 
enhanced capacity to implement or enforce. Th e identification of strategic challenges for the 
EN 27   EN region can be considered as a first step. As a second step a suitable governance structure has 
to be identified to ensure that appr opriate collective action is undertaken. 
The need for links between the European Uni on Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region and third 
countries whose cooperation will be essential for success – Russia in particular but also 
Belarus and Norway – is clear. The Northern  Dimension framework provides the basis for 
external cooperation with third countries in the Baltic Sea region, in particular with Russia 
and Belarus.  
There are many options for improving the capacity to address strategic challenges. However, 
stakeholders signalled in the public consulta tion that existing governance structures should 
remain in place. This was considered as necessa ry for political feasibility, therefore all options 
which would interfere significantl y with current governan ce structures were  discarded. Due to 
the multi-sectoral nature of the challenges and the need to address problems across sector, it was also considered that an integrated approach covering all sectors was necessary in order to implement a comprehensive action plan. Four options have been retained: 
(1) No further EU action  to enhance cooperation between countries and regions. In this 
option, the Member States would continue to work together as in the curre nt situation 
and cooperation with third c ountries would remain within  the existing framework, 
notably but not exclusively the Northern Dimension. 
(2) No additional structure: The change compared with the cu rrent situation would be that 
a strategy and action plan would be establ ished, but within the context of existing 
structures. This would imply that Member St ates and third countries  would continue to 
work together as in the curre nt situation, and based on an integrated strategy, but with 
no overall monitoring or review mechanisms in place. 
(3) Reliance on an existing institution . This option would entail strengthening one 
intergovernmental body to take  decisions and coordinate the implementation of the 
action plan. The only organisation which is su fficiently cross-sector al and includes all 
relevant MS at the government level is th e Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS). 
Cooperation with third countries woul d be sought through already existing 
frameworks. 
(4) Community approach, General Affairs Council and Commission : This would see the 
strategy being led and implemented in line with a normal Community approach in 
which political responsibility is taken by the Council of Ministers, normally meeting 
in the General Affairs Council, while co-o rdination, monitoring a nd reporting are the 
responsibility of the Commission. Given the te rritorial nature of the strategy, it would 
be appropriate for the Commission to associate in an advisory capacity, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, particularly in 
consultation of the wider partnership and st akeholders, while maintaining close links 
with the governments most closely involve d, for example through high-level working 
groups. Cooperation with third countries would be sought through already existing 
frameworks, in particular through th e Northern Dimension framework, after 
agreement among Member States has already been reached. As the Eastern Partnership 
mechanism develops this would also have a role to play. 
EN 28   EN The strategy must respect competences and institutions set up by the EU. This entails that the 
options listed above are minimum levels  of cooperation. Existing cooperation and 
Commission involvement sometimes already go beyond the proposed governance structures.  
All the governance options outlined above are aimed at enabling cooperation at a policy level.  
Implementation would still have to follow afte r agreement has been reached through one of 
the proposed structures. Any of the four governance structures proposed above would 
therefore have to be complemented with existing organizations which are focused on 
implementation of decisions. Alternatively, implementation of specific interventions could also take place through a new European Gr ouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). The 
EGTC is a legal entity and as such, enables regional and local author ities and other public 
bodies from different member states, to set up cooperation groupings with a legal personality. 
EGTC members can be inter alia Member States, regional or local authorities, associations, or 
any other public body. It enables public authorities of various Member States to deliver joint 
services. The EGTC is task-oriented, with fundi ng made available to it for the execution of 
the task it was created for. It  is not a decision-making body but a structure which is useful for 
implementing tasks decided on elsewhere, and as  such is complementary to the governance 
options listed above. It could be  particularly useful in areas where coordination is lacking at 
the level of implementation, e.g. energy and transport networks. 
5. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
The specific objective was defined as developing  a coherent framework for policy actions to 
address collective challenges, and setting up a governance structure which is able to ensure 
that actions are implemented in the most efficien t, effective and coherent way. The analysis of 
impacts is therefore twofold: analysing th e effectiveness of gove rnance structures in 
delivering results including administrative cost s and analysing the imp acts of actions aiming 
at addressing the priority challenges identifi ed on the economic, environmental and social 
systems in a qualitative way. The overall impact  may also depend on the financial crisis since 
it may make some problems such as economic di sparities more acute, ac centuating challenges 
linked to prosperity. Constraint s on public finances, particularly in the E-BSR may increase 
the need for greater alignment of funding to achieve strategic goals. 
5.1. Impacts of governance objectives 
The effective delivery of strategic actions within each theme depends on the governance 
structure, which is analysed briefly in this section against the three operational objectives. All 
three specific objectives can contribute to improved efficiency and effectiveness of public 
policy in responding to the challenges. 
• Improved coordination and coherence of actions:  This would address shortcomings in 
existing governance structures such as duplicati on of effort, fragmentation of policies and 
objectives, lack of mandate to take decisions outside the narr ow scope of the organization, 
unclear responsibilities, and inefficiencies re sulting from these weaknesses. By clarifying 
existing overlaps and defining roles, delivery or ganisations in the region could concentrate 
on the achievement of objectives and use reso urces more efficiently. Time allocated to 
coordination could be used for implementation. An integrated approach would allow better 
identification of cross-sectoral  conflicts and potential for wi n-win situations, as well as 
synergies in policy delivery. Improved coordinati on of spending priorities and in particular 
of EU funds both thematically (between po licies active in the same field such as 
EN 29   EN environment and energy) and geographica lly (such as transport and energy 
interconnections). 
• Institutional capability to ensu re implementation of actions : This would strengthen 
weak intergovernmental decisi on-making capacities, as well as the lack of capacity to 
enforce or implement decisions. A reinforced process would facilitate the decisions at both 
political and administrative le vel that are necessary to en sure effective implementation. 
This is particularly important for initiative s which depend on action in  several policy fields 
where different sectoral stakeh olders are involved, or alternat ively where there are strongly 
differing priorities across the region.  
• Improved visibility and a ccountability of actions  This would further strengthen 
enforcement and implementation of decisions. Monitoring and evaluation of results 
improves compliance, effectiveness and lesso n-learning. The current fragmentation of 
arrangements undermines such processes. An external body such as the Commission can potentially play an important role as an i ndependent actor in such  a process. Improved 
visibility and accountab ility can encourage ownership an d create consensus for common 
action particularly through p eer pressure. A process of m onitoring and follow-up allows 
actions to be adjusted to improve  both efficiency and effectiveness.  
Overall it is expected that benefits will accrue fr om an integrated approach to the challenges 
faced by the BSR from stronger cooperation and common learning. An integrated approach is 
expected to increase coherence among policies in the region, and cont ribute towards the 
general objective. An increase in overall effici ency is expected through increased coherence, 
addressing fragmentation and duplication of efforts. 
5.2. Impact on administrative costs 
In general it is expected that the administrativ e costs of additional coordination will be small 
compared to existing levels of administrative  activity. Improved c oordination and coherence 
will require a combination of contacts at workin g and political level to discuss more efficient 
use of resources and the development of common approaches both within and across sectors. 
Improved institutional capability will involve the development of decision-making mechanisms both within and across sectors.  Improved visibility and accountability will 
require both reinforced political  oversight and meta-monitoring of the implementation of the 
action plan. In practice, many of the contacts  and meetings required to achieve these 
objectives could be undertaken within existing structures.  
The additional resources require d will depend on the ambition of the strategy. At a first level, 
the EUSBSR will require a capacity to involve stakeholders in  the delivery of the strategy. At 
a second level, it will require a small secretar iat capable of producing annual reports on the 
basis of a meta-monitoring and managing high le vel working groups to prepare assessments 
of progress. This would only be possible by using an exis ting BSR institution or in a 
community approach. At a third level, a more de veloped secretariat would be able to maintain 
contact with EU institutions to ensure an inte grated and coherent approach to EU policies, 
particularly those areas where there is a strong EU competence.  This would only be possible 
within the context of a commun ity approach. The following ta ble summarises the potential 
administrative tasks under each option. 
EN 30   EN  
 No further EU 
action  No additional 
structure  Using an 
existing 
institution  Community 
approach  
Facilitate Stakeholder Involvement  Yes Yes Yes 
Undertake meta-monitoring and 
annual reporting   Yes Yes 
Organise high level working groups   Yes Yes 
Maintain coherent and integrated 
approach to EU policies    Yes 
Prepare annual council meeting    Yes 
 
• No further EU action:  There would be no direct costs. 
• No additional structure: The administrative costs would be borne by all existing 
organizations. Member States and Third Countries will use their existing procedures to 
oversee the actions proposed in the action plan  and involve stakeholde rs. This is therefore 
without administrative impact on the Commi ssion and the Council. However, Member 
States will find themselves obliged to use exis ting internal and cross-border co-ordination 
structures that may lead to considerable duplication of effort. As the option would not 
place any organizations above others, responsib ility for monitoring and enforcement would 
be shared. Due to inefficiencies and overlaps,  this may be less cost effective than other 
options.  
• Using an existing institution:  as the option involves choosing one currently existing 
intergovernmental organizati on and placing it in a coordi nating role, all costs of 
coordination and monitoring would be borne by an existing institution. Costs would be 
incurred by the existing institution from carry ing out the tasks of producing annual reports 
and facilitating stakeholder meetings. This would require staff to be committed to carrying out these tasks.  
• Community approach, General Affairs Council and Commission : Functions related to 
preparation of an annual Council meeting, ma naging high level working groups, producing 
annual reports on meta-monitoring, maintaining an integrated approach through internal 
coordination of Commission services, and faci litating stakeholder meetings will imply 
some burden on the Commission.  
The effective implementation of the final opt ion would require working groups of senior 
officials from the region, meeting 4 times a nnually and an annual stakeholder meeting. There 
would be no additional reporti ng requirement within the regi on as monitoring will be based 
on collation of existing reports from bodies and agencies in the region. Reporting to Council 
would be annual or biannual and require the preparation of a s ynthesis report t ogether with 
input from the relevant services of the Commissi on. It has been estimated that 4 full-time staff 
would be required to carry out these additional task s. It is expected that fewer staff resources 
would be required if an ex isting institution was used.  
EN 31   EN 5.3. Economic, environmental and soci al impacts of implementation 
The following table contains a qualitative evaluation of the e ffects of collective action under 
the main challenges, assuming a governance struct ure is identified which is able to ensure 
implementation. Annex 4 contains the detaile d analysis on which the table is based.  
Table 4. Policy scenario impacts 
Strategic Action 
environment 
economic social 
Eutrophication  + +/- +/- 
Marine biodiversity + +/- + 
Hazardous substances + +/- + 
Pollution from ships + 0 0 
Climate change + + + 
Internal market - + +/- 
Innovation 0 + + 
Entrepreneurship, SMEs, human resources 0 + + 
Agriculture, fisheries, forestry + +/- +/- 
Internal and external transport links +/- + +/- 
Energy security, energy market inte gration and energy efficiency + + + 
Attractiveness for citizens and tourists + + + 
Maritime safety + +/- + 
Cross border crime 0 + + 
Major emergencies at sea and on land + + + 
This analysis demonstrates how certain improve d responses to certain challenges will provide 
unequivocal benefits in terms of sustainable development. However, others may involve 
trade-offs between different polic y objectives. This is particular ly the case for environmental 
and transport challenges. This highlights the importance of an integrated approach to policy 
implementation, particularly since the costs a nd benefits of certain  initiatives may be 
distributed unequally across the re gion and across sectors. A more detailed analysis of the 
impact of the strategy should be  undertaken at a later stage. 
6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
The assessment of the different governance options took  place against three criteria (improved 
coordination and coherence, e nhanced institutional capability to ensure implementation of 
actions, improved visibility and accountability) on a general level, in addition, the options 
were assessed according to thei r ability to address the key governance challenges under the 
four themes of the strategy (environment, prospe rity, accessibility and safety and security). 
Governance challenges identified within the four themes of the strategy show similarities. The 
main governance challenges for environmental is sues are institutional weakness to enforce or 
implement decisions already taken, as well as a lack of capability to address trade-offs 
between environmental and economic issues in an  integrated manner due to a narrow focus of 
organizations. Governance challenges for prosperi ty issues are lack of coordination at the 
policy level, with the exception of the challenge related to the internal market, where there is 
EN 32   EN lack of coordination at the level of implemen tation. The main issues under the heading of 
accessibility and attractiveness, and in particular for transport and energy issues is a lack of 
coordination at implementation level and lack  of alignment of funding, despite existing 
coordination at the policy level. The main challenges related to safety and security are fragmentation of effort geographically and betw een sectors which results in a suboptimal use 
of resources. The different governance options address the different types of governance 
challenges within the four themes of  the strategy in different ways.  
• The most severe governance issue in the area of environment, namely the lack of ability to 
make trade-offs between environmental and economic issues, could only be addressed by 
one overall governance structure, such as an Existing Institution  or the Community 
Approach . The latter would be bette r equipped to enforce implementation due to  the 
oversight role of the Council and the Co mmission in terms of related EU policy.  
• The governance challenges most obvious in issues related to  prosperity, a lack of 
coordination at the polic y level, require a strong transna tional dimension. Given the strong 
East-West disparities and different focus acro ss the region, commit ment at the regional 
level would be facilitated by discussion in the Council. This would also allow linkages 
with the Open Method of Coordination of  the Lisbon Agenda to be established.  
• In the case of accessibility, lack of coordi nation at implementation level and lack of 
alignment of funding could only be appropria tely addressed by an overall governance 
structure with sufficiently high level represen tation, as these problems point towards larger 
problems of differences in interest between Member States in infrastructure decisions. 
Coordination in the context of security and safety matters could al so be facilitated by 
structures with sufficiently high levels of representation.  
The following table summarises the advantages and disadvantages of each option based on 
their ability to deliver the specifi c objectives which were identified. 
Table 5. Evaluation of governan ce options’ effectiveness  
Governance option 
No additional structure Reliance on ex isting institution Community approach Governance 
challenge 
MS to implement Strategy & 
Action Plan Existing IGO to implement Strategy 
& Action Plan General Affairs Council 
(policy); Commission (co-
ordination and monitoring) 
Specific objective 1: strengthened institutional capability to ensure implementation of actions 
Weak, consensual 
decision-making No improvement Non-EU membership weakens 
decision-making Improved through 
legitimate high level 
decision-making 
mechanism 
Lack of capability to enforce 
implementation No improvement No improvement, IGOs do not have 
enforcement capability Peer pressure only 
enforcement mechanism, 
progress measured against 
adopted action plan 
Lack of capability 
to implement 
decisions Can implement, but no 
improvement in coordination Not improved, CBSS does not have 
implementing capacity High level participation 
increases likelihood of 
implementation 
Specific objective 2: improved coordination and coherence 
Duplication of effort No improvement in existing 
approaches to coordination Improved, although not clear how 
organization would coordinate 
organizations including 
representation at same level Addressed through higher 
level coordination, 
responsibilities clarified in 
action plan 
EN 33   EN  
Fragmentation of 
policies Improved as each MS would 
have same strategy to follow No mandate for integrated approach 
to EU action plan Addressed through higher 
level coordination, 
integrated approach 
identified in action plan 
No mandate to 
take decisions 
with significant 
impacts outside 
narrow focus of 
organization No improvement Addressed by assigning general 
responsibility of implementation of 
collective action to organization: but 
this would require change in nature. Addressed through higher 
level coordination 
Unclear responsibilities Improved: Member States are 
responsible but lack 
coordination structure Not improved – no mandate to effect 
change in other organisations  Addressed through 
identification of roles in 
action plan 
Specific objective 3: improved visibility and accountability 
Low level of 
accountability No improvement Problematic, as membership 
includes both EU and third countries 
for EU strategy Improved: Member States 
are responsible, however, 
peer pressure only 
enforcement mechanism, 
progress measured against 
adopted action plan 
Low level of visibility Improved through existence of 
strategy Improved through existence of 
strategy Improved through 
existence of strategy and 
higher political level 
It should be noted that Russia, a member of th e CBSS, has stated that it does not wish to see 
the CBSS used as an instrument to implement an EU strategy. 
A score was given to each of the options ba sed on the analysis, and the scores were 
aggregated. This is presented in table 6. In addition, the options were analysed for each 
challenge identified, to evaluate the ability of the governance options to address the governance challenges. The results are presented in Annex 5 and confirm the assessment at 
the level of the st rategy’s objectives. 
Table 6. Comparison of governance options 
Contribution to achievement of specific 
objectives No change No additional 
structure Reliance on 
existing 
institution Community 
approach 
improved coordination and coherence 0 0 + +++ 
institutional capability to ensure 
implementation of actions 0 ++ ++ ++++ 
improved visibility and accountability 0 + + ++ 
TOTAL 0 3+ 4+ 9+ 
While such an approach is very qualitative, this would suggest that the best option is a 
Community approach. It offers good scope to improve the quality of  governance within the 
BSR, particularly since it provides the best opportunity for monitoring. It also ensures a 
robust peer review process. In  addition, the Community approach  is the only approach which 
would ensure coordination of policies both at th e Community level and the level of the BSR, 
as the General Affairs Council ha s the advantage of being able to discuss both issues related 
to the BSR and Community issues. This would th erefore be the only approach which is able 
to fully address issues (e.g. agriculture and fish eries) where there is a significant Community 
competence in an integrated manner while main taining coherence with EU policies. This 
option would also ensure close coordination with the Northern Dimension, and would not 
require prior coordination on the EU position outs ide the strategy as in the other options.  
EN 34   EN While this analysis demonstrates that the most effective and consistent option is the 
Community approach, it does no t take into account efficiency  considerations. These are 
difficult to assess given the very qualitative  nature of the changes brought about by the 
different options. As the section on analysis of impact demonstr ated, the direct and indirect 
administrative costs associated with the options  are small, since all seek to work within 
existing structures and make better use of available resources. No additional legislation is proposed, no additional reporting requirement is put forward and no additional decision-
making mechanism is introduced. In its implementa tion, it will be important to ensure that the 
strategy does not lead to increa sed organisational complexity. In this respect, the involvement 
of the EU level through its inst itutions, and in particular th e Council and the Commission, can 
play an important role in disciplining and stru cturing the implementation of the action plan, to 
ensure consistency with Community policies and avoid fragmentation of initiatives.  
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The implementation of the EUSBSR should be mon itored at three levels. It is assumed that 
the option “Community approach” is adopted as this provides the greatest scope for robust 
monitoring and evalua tion arrangements.  
• The strategy should set out milestones for puttin g in place the necessary structures (putting 
in place thematic working groups, establishing re sponsible actors for the collection of data, 
establishment of communication arrangements  within region and contact points for 
stakeholders). A reporting framework and timetable should be established. 
• A set of monitoring indicators should be set out  under each of the pr iorities in the action 
plan with a detailed framework to allow asse ssment of the implementation process. These 
milestones/indicators would be adopted with the action plan. 
• A set of headline indicators should be defined to assess the general e volution in the BSR in 
respect of the key chal lenges. A first draft set is presen ted below in Table 7. These would 
form the basis for the establishment of baselines against which progress on achieving 
objectives in the field of environment, pros perity, accessibility and security could be 
evaluated. One of the first tasks undertaken shou ld be to examine whether further analysis 
is required to further develop indicators a nd instruments for assessing the impact of the 
strategy.  
Reporting arrangements would need to be es tablished. The Commission could report on a 6 
monthly or annual basis on progress towards ac hieving the milestones set out in the action 
plan. A timetable for evaluation (perhaps after 3 years of implementation) could also be set 
out. In line with its role in supporting the peer  review process, the Commission could identify 
areas where progress is slow, and where a ppropriate make proposal s to the Council on 
specific measures to address. There should be an opportunity to update the strategy regularly 
in light of the effectiveness and efficiency of  the governance structure in delivering collective 
action, and in light of the adequ acy of the targets. The inclusi on of a sunset clause in the 
strategy could provide incentives for countries and stakeholders to implement and further 
develop it. 
EN 35   EN Table 7. Proposed headline indicators 
Environment : Eutrophication: riverine loads of phosphorus and nitrogen  
 Marine biodiversity and overfishing: Breed ing success and conservation status of fish 
species (MSY)  
 Hazardous substances: reduction of loads of  the hazardous substances identified by 
HELCOM  
 Pollution from ships: Increase of ports equi pped to recycle wastewater and provide 
electricity  
 Progress on reaching the national energy efficiency goals  
 Increase in production of electric ity from renewable energy sources  
Prosperity  Change in score in the European Innovation Scoreboard  
 Change in the number of patents delivered to the EPO per population (or enterprise) entity 
compared with R&D expenditure  
 Change in intra-EU mobility  
 Change in bilateral trade volumes  
Accessibility and 
attractiveness  Amount of traded energy / capacity of cross border energy grid interconnections (%)  
 Energy: projects identified under the Baltic Interconnection Plan  
 Transport: progress in th e approved TEN-T projects  
 Change in number of foreign university students  
Safety and 
security  No. of ship accidents resulting in oil spills or personal injury  
 Number of drug trafficking cr imes recorded by the police  
EN 36   EN Annexes 
ANNEX 1 - EU STRATEGY FOR THE BALTIC SEA REGION - PLANNING  
Task Date 
Communication + Annex   
1st draft 09/03/2009  
ISC 01/04/2009 - 22/04/2009  
Final draft (modifications after ISC)  30/04/2009  
Adoption by the College + Translation  04/05/2009 - 29/05/2009  
Sending to the Council  01/06/2009  
Stocktaking document   
Input from MS, other DGs, Geographical units, socio-economic analysis 
of DG REGIO, Conferences and Roundtables, evaluation and fact-finding 
missions  by 31/12/2008  
Input from the Impact Assessment  09/02/2009 - 13/02/2009  
Final draft  15/01/2009  
Procedure for publication (Staff WP)  later 
Impact Assessment   
Public consultation   
Public consultation  03/11/2008 - 31/12/2008  
Use of the replies to the public consultation  05/01/2009 - 30/ 01/2009  
Impact Assessment Report   
Submission to IA Board  04/02/2009  
IA Board  04/03/2009  
Action Plan (optional)   
Final draft (Staff WP)  28/04/2009  
Procedure for publication (Staff WP)  After the Council  
EN 37   EN ANNEX 2 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION - SUMMARY  
Consultation process  
The EU Strategy for the BSR is ba sed on a series of consultations: 
– Consultation of 20 Directorates Genera ls of the European Commission which all 
contributed in their field of expertise; 
– Consultation of Member States, Regional a nd Local Authorities and stakeholders (Inter-
Governmental and Non-Governmental Bodies , Experts and representatives from the 
private sector) in the BSR (through many m eetings, 2 conferences, 4 roundtables and 
official position papers pres ented to the Commission). 
– General Public Consultation via the intern et. This consultation was launched on the 
website on 3 November 2008 and closed on 31 December 2008. This public consultation was supported by a scoping paper prepared by the European Commission presenting the main issues and the main questions. 
Main results
 
The main results are the following: 
Process 
– In total 109 authorities, institutions or i ndividuals responded to the consultation and 
presented their views. Out of these, 8 were Member States (every Member State in the 
BSR presented a position paper), 3 were non Member States (Russia, Belarus, Norway), 31 were Regional and Local Authorities, 48 were  Inter-Governmental and Non-Governmental 
Bodies, 19 were representative s from the private sector out of which 2 were experts / 
researchers and 3 were individuals. 
– The expectations of the Member Stat es and stakeholders are very high. 
Governance 
– There was also an overall agreement that there are merits in having the European 
Commission involved both in the design and implementation of a strategy for the BSR. 
One of the reasons is that the existing Inte r-Governmental and Non-Governmental Bodies 
do not have the authority needed to ensu re actions are implemented in practice. 
– In addition, the general view is that no new institution shoul d be created at the level of the 
BSR, but that the existing ones should be somehow involved in the decision-making 
process as well as in the implementation process. 
– Many stakeholders indicated th at the decisions taken at th e level of the BSR should be 
binding and that instruments to do so should be created. 
– There is an understanding that there will be  no new Regulations nor additional funding 
from the European Union, although this woul d be desirable for several stakeholders. 
EN 38   EN Priorities 
– There is an overall agreement that the four objectives identified by the European 
Commission are indeed the main ones. 
– Regarding the objective to make the BSR an environmentally sustai nable place the main 
priorities are reduction of nutri ent inputs to the sea to accep table levels, preservation of 
natural zones and biodiversity, reduction of th e use and impact of hazardous substances, 
limitation of the risk of oil spill pollution, reduc tion of the pollution from the ships and 
mitigation / adaptation to climate change. 
– Regarding the objective to make the BSR a pros perous place the main priorities are better 
implementation of the single market, fo stering of innovation, promotion of 
entrepreneurship, integration of the labou r market (including education issues), 
reinforcement of relations with Russia (incl uding the improvement of customs procedures 
in Russia), sustainability of fishing and good use of agriculture and forestry. 
– Regarding the objective to make the BSR an  accessible and attractive place, the main 
priorities are ending the energy isolation of  the Baltic States, improvement of the 
functioning of the energy market, improvement of  internal and external transport links and 
tourism. 
– Regarding the objective to make the BSR a safe  and secure place, the main priorities are 
cross border law enforcement activities, ma ritime surveillance and safety activities, 
maritime accident response, preparedness and response to storms and response to major 
health threats. 
Conclusion  
The information and positions from the consultation process have been analysed by the 
European Commission and in general were take n onboard in the design of the EU Strategy for 
the BSR. 
 
 
Report of the 2nd Stakeholder Conference in Rostock, 5-6 February 2009 
Environment Workshop 
Sif Johansson presented the elements of the indicative action plan. (32 actions/projects) 
Anne Christine Brusendorff, on behalf of Helcom,  made the following points: 
(1) Sectoral integration, incl uding fishing and agricultural sector and Maritime Spatial 
Planning, is important 
(2) Need good implementation mechanism: ali gn government structures. Helcom brings 
together 9 Coastal states  and Commission and also (w hen required) Belarus and 
Ukraine. This works and provides level playing field. Links between BSAP and 
Directives mean that Helcom supports EU policy. 
EN 39   EN (3) Alignment of financing instruments: needed due to limited human and financial 
resources. Offer cooperation structur e to identify syne rgies and gaps. 
(4) Role of Commission and EU. Clarifications  of types of actions – some completed 
some not yet started, who will ensure start and completion. 
Happy about emphasis on Marine an d on BONUS programmes/policies. 
Åsa Andersson – WWF (Sweden)  asked what can be different about the EUSBSR, what is 
its added value? She identified two additional values: 
(1) Integrated approach wi th many sectors and actors 
(2) EU strategy with strengt h and depth that implies. 
Three elements are needed to make strategy genuinely effective:  
• strengthen integration across objectives, not just  focus on environment. Need to ensure that 
actions are complementary not contradictory. Agriculture and Fisheries policies are the 
most important pressures on Baltic Sea. H ELCOM cannot address th ese adequately: the 
European Union strategy must do so, with direct engagement with the CAP and CFP. 
Other relevant Directives must be implemented. 
• strong implementation mechanism. How will imp lementation be assured? What will be 
sanctions? What will be role of Commission?  Given the importance of an integrated 
approach, the speaker supported the involvement of Heads of State. 
• Maritime Spatial Planning is crucial. This could reduce conflicts and enable development 
and conservation in security and confidence 
Uno Aldegren , Chair, Inter-group “Ba ltic Sea Regions” at the Co mmittee of the Regions, 
made four points: 
(1) Concept of sustainability . Economic and social aspects are part of sustainability. 
All three legs must be supported.  
(2) Council should be responsible . Need strong preparatory group with Commission in 
chair and local and regional re presentatives. Annual Baltic Sea Forum to review and 
follow-up work. 
(3) Projects financed through Structural Funds . Flagship projects should be 
important feature of implementation. S hould make Baltic a Best Practice Region. 
(4) Cannot ignore Russia . Good relations essential but must not undermine Northern 
Dimension dialogue. 
From the floor.  
• Danish Farmers Union: speaking for other Farmers groups  except for Poland underlined 
the willingness of farmers to contribute to th e goals of the strategy.  He pointed out that 
food production needs to increase and advanced  technology will not provide the solution 
across the whole region. He agreed that fa rmers could do much to reduce effluents and 
EN 40   EN called for awareness raising and incentives to help. Better classifi cations of potentially 
dangerous substances would also  help. Novel preparations w ith fewer risks than the old 
ones should be introduced more ra pidly. Finally, he called fo r more expertise on how to 
best handle and exploit bio-gas. 
• Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership:  member organisations are all 
concerned with implementation of BSAP and welcome the priority given to it. 
Recommend using the resources of the Inte rnational Financial In stitutions and funding 
sources (EBRD EIB NIB NDFA and also ESF)  to implement environmental actions. 
Action is very urgent but the example of St Petersburg (waste water effluent reduction) 
shows that success is possible. Need to set a ta rget to treat all wastew ater across the region, 
in line with EU Directives. 
• Coalition of 26 Environmental NGOs: problems are primarily linked to CAP and CFP. 
Need to address subsidies and incentives in these policies. Action Plan is more objectives 
than actions. Need to find ways of satisfying the needs of agriculture sustainably, avoiding 
massive introduction of nitrates and phosphates and subsidising techniques to reduce run-
off. Also fisheries section should be more specific, for example subsidising good fishing 
practices like long lines,  reduction of by-catch. 
• WWF Germany : many proposed projects already a pproved. Even for biodiversity there 
are already agreed integrated protected areas.  Advocates using the BS AP as starting point 
for setting priorities for example wastewat er facilities for ship s in all harbours. 
Shorter points: 
• Kiev University : Use Baltic Development Forum as basis for annual review of Strategy 
• Ministry of Environment Germany : Should be clearer if the actions go beyond BSAP. 
• Baltic 21 : Want more specific projects,  
• Baltic University programme : Need more action related to agriculture. Must have more 
focus on advisory services as well as funding and legislation. Livest ock density is large 
part of the problem.  
• BSSSC Maritime Group : Reducing pollution of ship s is very important, support 
proposals of Commission. Note the action plan  “Clean Baltic Shipping” which includes 
many other groups. Among the actions proposed: 
– Ship to shore electricity 
– Environmentally differentiated harbour use 
– Clean cruising 
– Labels for clean shipping 
– Awards for best practice. Was Marine awar d 5 years ago. Since then nothing happened. 
Should reintroduce for motivational effects 
EN 41   EN • West Finland : Farms are doubling in size every ten years. As size increases drainage 
becomes more critical so there should be f unding to establish wetla nds. Also the creation 
of regional indicators would mo tivate regional politicians. 
Summary Agricultural and Fisheries policies are critical and subsidies must be for 
genuine public goods, not pollution. Need ecologi cal protected areas in spatial planning 
system. Need excellent implementation syst em Need annual meeting – how to link in 
different bodies and actors? 
Maritime Policy Workshop 
Moderator : Mr. Pierre Schellekens, Head of Un it, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
Mr Schellekens started by emphasising the link between the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy 
and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. The policy includes the idea of developing 
macro-regional maritime strategies on a sea-basin level in order to carry out more integrated maritime policy making, both across sectors and across borders. The EUSBSR is the first 
example of such an exercise being carried out, even though its scope extends beyond maritime 
policy. A Communication on the Arctic, closely re lated to the maritime policy, was published 
in 2008 and a maritime policy for the Mediterranean is foreseen for this summer. 
The Integrated Maritime Policy contains two leve ls of action; an integrated approach to 
maritime policy-making, and concrete measures for maritime governance, environment and economy. The most central horizontal action points  for an integrated maritime policy in the 
Baltic Sea are: 
– Maritime spatial planning: There is great co mpetition for the use of the marine space. 
– Maritime surveillance: Cooperation already exis ts, but needs to be reinforced both across 
sectors and across borders. 
– Clean Baltic shipping: An "umbrella action" c overing shore-side electricity, treatment of 
waste-water etc. is needed. 
– Fisheries: Problems connected to  discard and control in fisher ies remain serious. Reform of 
the common fisheries policy (CFP) will be launched this year. 
– Maritime clusters: Increasing the networks be tween actors involved in the maritime 
economy. 
Mr Schellekens announced during the discussion a Baltic Sea pilot project on spatial planning 
in 2010 that would look at differe nt options, and another pilot on maritime surveillance in the 
Baltic Sea that would aim to improve in particular cross sectoral cooperation. 
Mr Peter Pouplier, chairman of  VASAB, spoke about one aspect  of the Integrated Maritime 
Policy, namely spatial planning, in both marine and coastal zones. VASAB is aiming for the 
approval of a long term vision at the upcomin g meeting of Baltic Sea Region ministers for 
planning. Mr Pouplier's main messages to the Co mmission in terms of spatial planning issues 
in the EUSBSR were:  
– Focus on management of sea resources; 
EN 42   EN – Focus on protecting the environment; 
– Initiate a transnational system for maritime spatial planning; 
– Make best use of existing organisations in the BSR (VASAB, HE LCOM) when dealing 
with spatial planning. 
Mr Poul Muller of the CPMR Baltic Sea Commi ssion welcomed the approach of tailor-made 
solutions for specific maritime basins. He listed  the following issues that he wished to be 
addressed in the EUSBSR: 
– A coherent system of transport and solvi ng bottlenecks in partic ular with Russia; 
– No waste-water to be let in to the sea; 
– Only experienced ice navigators to be accepted in ice conditions; 
– Coordinated maritime accident response; 
– Resolve conflicts related to fisheries and base measures on scientific advice; 
– Give priority to concrete pr ojects rather than studies; 
– Build governance: important to "find the right tools" (money!), work together to make 
solutions possible. The mere fact of talking to each other is already an achievement as 
such, Mr Muller thought. 
The discussion focussed on maritime spatial planni ng, transport, clean shipping and fisheries. 
Mr Seele of the Federal government of Germ any announced that a maritime policy expert 
group is being established within the auspices  of the CBSS and woul d deal with many of 
these issues. 
A representative from the South Baltic Sea Pr ogramme noted that there is a remarkable 
difference in willingness betw een Member States to implem ent common spatial planning. The 
governance structures of the EUSBSR are of  utmost importance to provide stimuli for 
advancing BSR spatial planning. 
Mr Pouplier was concerned that the lack of common spatial planning wa s contributing to the 
problems of TEN-T implementation. Mr Vuorim aki (RELEX) pointed out that the upcoming 
Northern Dimension Partnership for Transport a nd Logistics aims to solve bottlenecks with 
third countries. 
A representative of the BSSSC  board called for a flagship action in the EUSBSR concerning 
clean shipping that would contain ship to  shore electricity, ec onomic environmental 
incentives for the shipping industry, a plea for clean cruises, labour is sues in the shipping 
industry, and an award for best pr actice. Mr Schellekens replied that clean shipping is a matter 
of reputation for the industry and that industry, partners and re gions must work together to 
address issues. Taxation of shor e side electricity is one majo r issue, and generally speaking 
Mr Schellekens said it is necessary to go further than legislative requirements in this area. A representative of the Port of Sassnitz reminded of  the simple reality that someone will have to 
make the financial investments for these meas ures (e.g. port electricity ) and in the economic 
downturn it would be unlikely that ports themselves do it. 
EN 43   EN WWF  called for better integration of the CFP into the EUSBSR action plan, while Coalition 
Clean Baltic  made a strong case for the importance of  integrating the CAP. Mr Schellekens 
answered that while fisheries is an exclus ive community competence, DG MARE is working 
on concrete technical control measures to impr ove the situation. Mr Muller did not want to 
involve the CAP in EUSBSR, seeing the CAP as "high politics" not ha ving its place in the 
strategy.  
Prosperity Workshop  
The workshop was moderated by Björn Månsson , Chief Editor, Hufvuds tadsbladet, Helsinki, 
and included presentations from the Europ ean Commission, comments from a panel with 
three experts ( Mr Anders Ahnlid , Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Mr Stephan 
Müchler , President of Baltic Chambers of Commerce Association and Prof. Dr. Dr. Hans-
Robert Metelmann, Chairman of ScanBalt) and a discussion involving all workshop 
participants. 
The European Commission outlined potential key actions to be included in the Action Plan 
which will be attached to th e Communication in which the strategy will be presented (see 
attached slide presentation). The aim of the workshop was to get feedback on the 
Commission's thoughts and collect ideas of potential additional key actions. 
The potential key actions presented covered the following main fields: 
– To better implement the single market  
– To foster innovation  
– To promote entrepreneurship 
– To integrate the labour market 
– To reinforce sustainable agriculture, forestry and fishing 
The Commission explained that as regard th e single market no new legislation would be 
introduced. With regard to the economic crisis  the Commission highlighted the important role 
of innovation and clusters (incl.  cluster cooperation), and their potential as main drivers.  
The Commission's ideas were largely supported by the experts and workshop participants. 
The following topics were particularly highli ghted by the experts and during the following 
discussions: 
Mr Ahnlid  agreed that it is important to improve th e functionality of the internal market. To 
support this, regional Internal Market partnershi ps (fostering close regional public authority 
cooperation) could be develope d. He also proposed Single Points of Contact for the 
implementation of the services directive, cooperation on mutual recognition putting new 
regulation into good practice, a Baltic Sea Region Market Surveillance network, more 
customs cooperation and an Internal Market info rmation system. It would also be important to 
improve the brand and recognition of the intern al market, by informing on new opportunities 
offered by e.g. the service directive, to devel op user friendly access to  and integration of 
Single Points of Contact and to develop an In ternal Market guide w ith a regional component. 
Finally SOLVIT was mentioned in very positive terms even if it could be further improved.  
EN 44   EN Stephan Müchler  stressed the importance of implementation and follow-up of the strategy 
and its action plan. He also emphasized the need for better implementation of the Single 
Market, the importance of fost ering innovation, the importance  of strengthening student 
exchanges, entrepreneurship, and the particular importance of an integr ated labour market in 
order to meet demographic challenges. As regards agriculture, forestry and fisheries focus should be on sustainability. He also stressed  the need for better use of cooperation with 
Russia, and investments in border crossings. He concluded by stressing that the business 
community and business clusters have a lot to offer in the Baltic Sea Region. 
Prof. Dr. Dr. Robert Metelmann  emphasized the shared values in the Baltic Sea Region, 
e.g. with regard to the importance put on educat ion, science and research. The region is also 
very diverse with different la nguages, ethnic and religious bac kgrounds and different levels of 
prosperity. He also brought a so cial perspective to the discussi on and claimed that prosperity 
in the Baltic Sea Region should concern all indi viduals living in the region. He raised the 
question how the strategy is affecting people with certain disadvantages. In the region there is 
a high level of un-skilled labour force which have difficulties in  finding the right place in a 
knowledge based economy. The human and i ndividual aspects should thus be duly 
considered. 
Participants from the floor  highlighted the following additional issues: 
– How stimulate economy in the region, for example with regard to TENs. 
– The importance of not disregarding the northern perspective: The EU raw material strategy 
was highlighted. As the EU is so dependant on imports of raw materials (90% is imported), 
it is important for the EU to duly consider  the potentials and needs related to the 
exploitation, processing and tran sportation of raw materials (minerals, forests etc) in the 
north. Special account would al so have to be taken of in novation and specialization, in 
particular with regard to cold climate t echnology, and natural resources like the wild 
salmon.  
– There should be equal opportunities for ev erybody, including less well educated young 
people who need to get a ccess to the labour market. 
– Education, science and research have a bi g potential and coopera tion between regional 
universities, schools, vocational education institutions and la bour market authorities needs 
to be fostered. 
– INTERREG should focus more on e.g. innovation  and not be a playground for planners. 
– The idea of a Baltic University Institute in or der to promote academic cooperation in social 
sciences was launched. This could be a good ground for joint discussion and identity 
building. 
– Innovation and co-operation between universities  and enterprises, using cluster tools, 
should be used to develop new products and services. 
Safety and Security Workshop 
Moderator: Mr. Piotr Stocki,  Commander of the Polish Maritime Border Guards Unit, 
Gdansk, responsible for borders with Germ any, Lithuania and Russian Federation 
(Kaliningrad) 
EN 45   EN Mr Petteri Vuorimäki of DG External Relations of the European Commission introduced the 
slides prepared by DG Regional Policy on the proposed  actions for this part of the Action 
Plan. He offered some personal reflections on th e issue noting that safety and security would 
need to be understood widely, not  only to encompass issues re lated to maritime safety. He 
offered definitions on the terms and noted that all  people, including various vulnerable 
groups, must feel safe and secu re and thus we need to info rm public and tackle racism, 
xenophobia and intolerance. He pr esented the action areas:  
– decrease volume and harm done  by cross border crime,  
– BSR as a leading region in maritime operational safety,  
– ensure efficient maritime accident response capacity,  
– ensure sufficient response capacity to major storms and  
– preparedness to respond to cro ss border health threats.  
Ms Charlotte Wiin Havsteen , Head of Oceanographic Dept , Danish Maritime Safety 
Administration, presented the work  of her institution. In Denmark, the Navy is in charge of 
security, and the Maritime Safety  Administration of safety, i.e.  prevention of accidents. She 
explained the necessity of marine  spatial planning and of increased or even mandatory use of 
pilots in the Danish straits. She presented ex amples of routing of ships and separation of 
traffic around Bornholm, where after a grounding the routes have been fenced to prevent 
collisions. The Danish administration coopera tes with its Norwegian, Swedish, German and 
Polish counterparts in this work. Her main recommendations were incr eased use of spatial 
planning, e-navigation, exchange of data and AIS (Automatic Identification System (of 
vessels)). 
Ms Toril Roscher-Nielsen , Director General in the Norwegia n Ministry of Health and Care 
Services, Chair of the Committee of Senior Representatives for the Northern Dimension 
Partnership for Public Health a nd Social Wellbeing (NDPHS), considered that public health is 
a cross-cutting issue that relate s to all four objec tives of the strategy. Social well-being had 
also been raised in the Prosperity workshop. She divided the public health problems in three 
major categories: communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases and accidents and injuries. Lifestyle related health threats are becoming more common due to alcohol, tobacco, 
accidents, violence, obesity, diabetes and anti-m icrobial resistance. The project pipeline for 
NDPHS included projects for 4.5 M € for 2008. 
Mr Lennart Svensson , Head of Division for Innovation and Cluster Development of the 
Skåne Region in Sweden, emphasised the importa nce of sharing intern ational expertise and 
know-how to create sustainable societal securi ty by encouraging collaboration on a day-to-
day basis in risk management and societal s ecurity training. The act ors should be defence 
forces, national, regional and local administ rations, health care system, police, rescue 
services, private companies. He considered the cooperation in these fields rather good at the 
Baltic Sea Region level but called for more vertical cooperation.  
Mr Stocki  reminded that the cooperation of the law enforcement authorities must rely on 
proper legal basis. Already exis ting cooperation function in border controls, in the task force 
on organised crime, in FRONTEX coordinating th e work on the external borders of the EU 
and in the Eurosur monitori ng coastal areas in all EU. 
EN 46   EN Mr Thomas Przybyla  of the Federal Police of Germany raised as important issues trafficking 
in human beings, threats to en ergy sources (wind pa rks, pipelines) and mentioned an existing 
intranet for information exchange and the st atus of BSR as a model region in FRONTEX 
activities. 
Mr Paavo Pirttimäki  of the Finnish Ministry of Interi or mentioned the importance of good 
cooperation with Belarus, Ukraine and Russia in security matters. 
Mr Christoffer Gyllenstierna  of the Swedish Road Administ ration raised traffic accident 
prevention, in which Sweden has good experience th at it has also shared with other countries. 
Mr Gerd Tarand  of the BSSSC youth network passed the message from the Hamburg youth 
event that social security is a basis for safety ; this also has an impact on the possibilities and 
willingness to work in neighbouring countries as  the lack of social security may prevent 
mobility. 
 
EN 47   EN ANNEX 3 - ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGES FACED BY BSR 
Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
TO MAKE THE BSR 
AN 
ENVIRONMENTALLY 
SUSTAINABLE 
PLACE The main problems 
are eutrophication and 
overfishing, which 
both are directly 
connected to the 
ecological 
specificities of the 
Baltic Sea basin: 
common pool Baltic Sea Region 
specific as the Baltic 
Sea basin has very 
particular 
environmental 
characteristics and is in 
a particularly bad state.There is a good 
cooperation forum 
(HELCOM) but it is 
difficult to make the 
actions happen on the 
ground as 
commitments taken in 
HELCOM are not 
always respected See below See below 
To reduce the nutrient 
inputs to the sea to acceptable levels Excess of algae and 
oxygen free bottom water 
Pollution from the 
rivers and airborne pollution 
Lack of mechanisms Baltic Sea Region 
specific (the whole river basin) HELCOM: poor 
coordination with other policies and lack of cross-sectoral dialogue 
HELCOM lacks 
mandate to implement or to enforce implementation by HELCOM Action 
Plan on eutrophication 
More wetlands More cross-
sectoral dialogue between environment / Consider 
eutrophication when implementing the CAP (less fertilisers near rivers, efficient use of fertilisers, recycling nutrients) 
More research through 
 
EN 48   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
to clean the water 
Long lasting effect of 
the nutrient loads others industry and 
agriculture. BONUS 169  
To preserve natural 
zones and biodiversity Ecosystem 
particularly vulnerable due to the specificities of the Baltic Sea 
Arrival of non-native 
species 
Decline of fish stocks 
due to fisheries 
Loss of wildlife on 
land Baltic Sea Region 
specific HELCOM: poor 
coordination with other policies and lack of cross-sectoral dialogue 
HELCOM lacks 
mandate to implement or to enforce implementation by others HELCOM Action 
Plan on biodiversity 
More cross-
sectoral dialogue between environment / fishing and agriculture. Implementation of EU 
legislation regarding catches limits, reporting on catches and discards of catches 
To reduce the use and impact of hazardous substances Organic contaminants 
and heavy metals 
Chemical weapons Baltic Sea Region 
specific HELCOM: poor 
coordination with other policies and lack of cross-sectoral HELCOM Action 
Plan on hazardous substances Assess the effects of 
hormone like substances 
 
EN 49   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
Hazardous substances 
remain for a long period 
Dioxin in fishes dialogue 
HELCOM lacks 
mandate to implement or to enforce implementation by others 
HELCOM does not 
cover some substances Researching the 
impact of hazardous substances on the Baltic sea ecosystem. 
To become a model region for clean shipping More ships are 
navigating 
The ships pollute in 
the harbours (NOx and SOx) 
Waste water from 
ships rejected in the sea Obligatory standards 
are international level measures because of the nature of the shipping industry, while voluntary measures are Baltic Sea Region specific due to the urgent environmental status of the sea. HELCOM: poor 
coordination with other policies and lack of cross-sectoral dialogue 
HELCOM lacks 
mandate to implement or to enforce implementation by others HELCOM Action 
Plan on maritime transport 
Voluntary 
measures to reduce wastewater discharges 
Provide 
electricity in portsEliminate discharge of 
sewage from ships through a negotiation at the International Maritime Organisation 
 
EN 50   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
To adapt to climate 
change Impacts of climate 
change in the Baltic Sea Region will be high 
Local impacts of 
climate change are unknown 
 Adaptation to climate change will have to take place at all levels, and adaptation to certain impacts are best taken on a Baltic Sea Region specific level. HELCOM: poor 
coordination with other policies and lack of cross-sectoral dialogue 
HELCOM lacks 
mandate to implement or to enforce implementation by others Promote the 
region as a ‘green’ one 
Increase the use 
of renewable energies 
Promote joint 
research on the local impacts of climate change Implement fully the 
EU-Russia energy efficiency initiative 
TO MAKE THE BSR A 
PROSPEROUS PLACE The main problem is 
lack of coordination 
leading to remaining 
trade barriers or 
suboptimal use of 
resources and 
economic potentials 
not being realised. EU-Wide/sub regional 
with negative effects 
on the Baltic Sea 
Region level  See below See below 
To remove hindrances to Implementation Internal market EU no coordination Aligning Open up the public 
 
EN 51   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
the internal market in the 
Baltic Sea Region failure, effect of other 
policies (e.g. taxation, transport) market protection (e.g. labour market) 
 level problem, 
cooperation between any group of MS possible in implementation of Internal Market between Member 
States on implementation of the internal market on goods and capital implementation 
of the internal market between implementing bodies in the Baltic Sea to remove internal markets barriers. sector to competition 
Remove barriers to the 
cross-border provision of services  
Better inform the 
SMEs and the public and sharing/exchanging competence. 
To exploit the full 
potential of the region in 
research and innovation Innovation produces 
positive externalities, as not all the benefits can be reaped by the agents of innovation, if left to the market, the level of innovation is suboptimal. In addition, systemic failure may be present (i.e. interactions Research and 
innovation currently mainly in national and EU policies.  
Increasing 
competitiveness by increasing critical mass through cooperation for which generally geographic lack of capacity to 
implement 
innovation gap not 
addressed in a strategic way no policy level coordination Establish a 
common innovation strategy for the region and create pan-Baltic Triple Helix 
Common use of 
critical and expensive R&D Improve the 
exploitation of research through patents 
 
 
EN 52   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
between players is 
suboptimal for generating or enabling innovation).  proximity is necessary, 
the substantial gap in innovation performance risks leading to suboptimal use of resources (especially human) at the BSR level. . and innovation 
infrastructure 
To promote 
entrepreneurship and 
strengthen SMEs, to 
increase the efficient use of human resources in 
the region Positive externalities 
produced by education to society as a whole. 
Positive externalities 
in the joint development of certain sectors like environmental technology and design. 
No matching between 
supply and demand of Promotion of SMEs 
and entrepreneurship, and increasing the efficient use of human resources is mainly a national and EU priority, cooperation at BSR level mainly limited to exchange of information. no joint action on 
matching supply and demand in the labour market 
no coordination 
between policies (e.g. education and labour) Organise labour 
migration in a more cohesive way 
Jointly develop 
sectors where the region has a strong future potential like environmental technology and design Entrepreneurship 
training a university level 
Maximise the positive 
effects of new rules 
Secure access to 
capital for SMEs 
Exchange experience 
on creating better framework conditions for SMEs. 
 
EN 53   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
labour at the Baltic 
Sea level Make the BSR a 
leader in design 
 Promote trade and attract more investment into the BSR 
Increase labour 
mobility 
Apply mutual 
recognition of qualifications 
To reinforce sustainable 
agriculture, forestry and 
fishing The forests are critical 
sources of biological diversity and other ecological, environmental and social values. The forests are capable to accumulate large amounts of CO
2, and 
hence to reduce the greenhouse effect. Agriculture and 
forestry relevant at national level. 
Fishery: all countries 
with a Baltic Sea coastline BSR level cooperation 
is not institutionalized Develop new 
approaches appropriate to the BSR for sustainable farming and forestry in the Baltic Sea climate and with the special environmental Enhance the combined 
effects of the rural development programmes 
Ensure fast broadband 
connection for rural areas 
Develop sustainable 
 
EN 54   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
Thus, economic, 
ecological and social optimizing of the forest sector, is urgent for securing long-term sustainability and development. 
Fisheries: Tragedy of 
the commons: overcapacity of fleet and not adhering to advice of ICES on total allowable catch. In addition illegal catches indicate enforcement failure. considerations 
that need to be observed. strategies for wood 
Ensure sustainable 
fishing 
TO MAKE THE BSR 
AN ACCESSIBLE 
AND ATTRACTIVE 
PLACE The main problems 
are the energy 
isolation of the Baltic 
States and the need to 
make the transport Baltic Sea Region 
specific as 
accessibility and 
attractiveness are There is basic lack of 
cooperation on these 
issues. Infrastructure 
investments are 
governed largely from See below See below 
 
EN 55   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
infrastructure much 
more coherent linked to a territory national perspectives 
only. There is 
fragmentation of 
effort. 
To improve the access 
to, efficiency and security of the energy markets Lack of energy 
infrastructures  
Infrastructure not 
sufficiently interlinked, in particular in the Baltic States which are not properly connected to the rest of the market 
 Baltic Sea Region specific TENs are coordinated 
at policy level but not sufficiently at the level of implementation, EU funding not aligned 
TENs are of limited 
scope, and other projects of BSR relevance are not included Addressing 
regional connectivity bottlenecks for an integrated and well-functioning internal market for energy 
Implement 
internal electricity market roadmap (within BEMIP) 
 Establish a list of priority projects in the frame of the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) and review of TEN-E Guidelines. 
Implement the current 
TEN-E projects 
Develop more clean 
energies 
To improve internal and external transport links This region needs 
good transport Baltic Sea Region 
specific TENs are coordinated 
at policy level but not Coordinate 
national transport Use the Northern 
Dimension 
 
EN 56   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
systems (periphery, 
distances are long, climate, sensitive ecosystem…) 
The region is not 
sufficiently connected to Russia (Asia) and the rest of Europe sufficiently at the level 
of implementation, EU funding not aligned 
TENs are of limited 
scope, and other projects of BSR relevance are not included policies 
Promote short-sea 
shipping 
 Partnership for the relations with Russia (better connections) 
Implement the TEN-T 
To maintain 
attractiveness of the Baltic Sea Region for its citizens to reinforce attractiveness for tourists Young educated 
people leave rural areas and leave the region (the attractiveness is fragile) 
Tourism opportunities 
are not fully seized  Baltic Sea Region 
specific cooperation is not 
institutionalized at the level of governments Highlight 
sustainable tourism potential 
Develop a BSR 
critical mass by networking the tourism industry 
Network 
universities and create common curricula Further increase 
exchanges of citizens and students 
Develop people-to-
people actions 
 
 
EN 57   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
To make the BSR a safe 
and secure place Improving maritime 
safety and security 
and management of 
hazards posing shared 
risks: common pool 
resource 
Addressing security 
deficits at borders and 
transport routes: law 
enforcement failure Crime and hazards are 
complex and of 
variable impact and 
spatial scope. Crime 
and hazards of a 
certain scope and 
impact are best 
managed at BSR level, 
others at national or 
EU level. Poor coordination 
(many different 
systems and forums at 
many levels) and 
fragmentation of 
policies (sectoral 
fragmentation of the 
disaster and crime 
management cycles) See below See below 
To decrease volume of, 
and harm done by cross 
border crime Law enforcement 
failures at internal and external borders cause security deficits. Operational 
cooperation mostly along borders between high and low income countries, but also relating to the region's logistics sector. sectoral and 
geographic fragmentation of law enforcement competencies  Follow up and 
decide about the further integration law enforcement functions and task (BSTF)  
(in part) Establish 
joint customs, border, police structures for (in part) Establish 
joint customs, border, police structures for operational cooperation  
 
EN 58   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
operational 
cooperation  
To become a leading 
region in maritime safety 
and security Pollution of sea: 
common pool resource 
 All countries with 
Baltic Sea coastline sectoral and 
geographic fragmentation of competencies Create a common 
maritime management system  
Commonly apply 
surveillance tools Ensure the fleet 
transporting energy products is up to the highest technological standards  
 
To reinforce protection 
from major emergencies at sea and on land Pollution of sea and 
other hazards posing risks to shared infrastructure or environment: common pool resource 
 Hazards are complex, 
varying in spatial scope and intensity of impact and thus require a variable disaster cycle management. In some cases BSR level management is the most appropriate. The two main hazards of the BSR are marine cooperation between 
agencies involved in response to marine pollution accidents is relatively well advanced but there is scope for strengthening some existing actions. Implement the 
work programme of the HELCOM Response Group 
Set up a winter 
storms/storm surge platform Provide and share 
information on equipment and transport resources 
 
 
EN 59   EN Challenge Type of problem 
(Common pool, 
enforcement etc.) Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea Specific/sub-
regional) Type of governance 
problem (Non-
implementation, non-
enforcement, poor 
coordination, unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation of 
policies) Baltic Sea 
Actions Coordination Actions 
with respect to EU 
policies 
pollution accidents and 
winter storms/storm surges which both often have impacts that require cross border disaster management. 
 
 
EN 60   EN ANNEX 4 - POLICY SCENARIO IMPACTS  
Headline Actions  Main focus  environmental impact  economic impact  social impact  
To reduce nutrient 
inputs to the sea 
to acceptable 
levels -Implementation of the 
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action 
plan. 
- Agree and implement measures to reduce nutrients 
input 
(Already existing measures, 
enforced governance)  + The coordination of activities 
will result in an increase in water 
quality in the Baltic Sea with 
positive impacts on biodiversity. 
 +/- Higher water qualities will contribute to 
the prosperity of dependent sectors such as 
tourism, fishery and agriculture.  
Avoidance costs will impose short term costs 
on sectors and activities where nutrient input 
is required.  
Increasing water qualities are likely to 
increase attractiven ess for tourists.  +/- Disparities in environmental 
standards are likely to be reduced. 
Increasing opportunity for tourism 
and fishery as well as investments in clean water will create a basis for 
sustainable growth. 
Some measures may result in 
higher costs to households (e.g. 
phosphate free detergents) 
Increasing water qualities are likely 
to contribute to a higher quality of 
life. 
To preserve 
biodiversity and 
natural resources  -Implementation of the 
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action 
plan. 
(Already existing measures, enforced governance)  + The coordinated preservation of 
areas of high nature value on land 
and sea is likely to contribute to 
stabilising ecosystems in the Baltic Sea. This should be 
particularly the case should better 
terrestrial and maritime planning lead to a network of protected 
areas and ecosystems. Review of 
catchment of fish will stabilise fish populations, Improved 
management of non commercial 
and commercial fish species.  +/- Areas of high nature value and 
maintaining biodiversity will increase the 
prosperity of dependent sectors, especially, 
fishery and tourism in the long term, however, fisheries will incur short term 
costs. Short term costs may be outweighed 
by further diversifying regional economies. 
 + Increasing biodiversity and better 
maritime and territorial planning 
are likely to contribute to a higher 
quality of life  
 
EN 61   EN Headline Actions  Main focus  environmental impact  economic impact  social impact  
To reduce the use 
and impact of 
hazardous substances  Implementation of the 
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action 
plan. Review fishery activities 
(Already existing measures, 
enforced governance)  Reduction of input of 9 hazardous 
substances into the Baltic Sea will 
have positive impact on health of fish and other species.  +/- Reduction of intake should lead to better 
reproduction of fish with positive effects on 
dependent sectors. 
Food safety of fish increases over the long 
term with positive effect on fisheries.  
Short term costs to economic sectors where 
reduction of emissions is required.  + Increased food safety  
To reduce the 
pollution from the 
ships - Implementation of the 
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action 
plan.  
 - Eliminate the discharge of 
sewage from ships by declaring the Baltic Sea as a special area 
(joint submission to the IMO). 
 - Launch of a trading system of SO2 and NOx. 
(some already existing 
measures, enforced governance)  + small improvement in air 
quality and water quality  0 No significant impact on ships. Impact on 
enhancing sewage reception at ports. 
Emission trade in NOx, but this is not 
possible to implement due to high 
transaction costs. 
 0 no significant impact, slight 
improvement in quality of 
environment.  
To adapt to 
climate change  - increased cooperation and 
coordination of national 
research and adaptation measures 
(new measure)  + decreases negative effects of 
natural hazards on ecosystems 
(e.g. flooding)  + reduction of overall costs for regional 
economies of natural hazards 
+ overall security increase  + possible reduction of costs and 
increase in security, decrease in 
personal injuries  
To fully 
implement the 
Single Market  - facilitating cross border 
business of SMEs; 
- enhance coordination and 
cooperation between national 
authorities in managing the Single Market. 
(Mainly already existing - integration of markets implies 
more trade, more transport, higher 
emissions of GHGs and pollutants  + Differentiated impact across regions 
depending on competitiveness. Overall 
increase in efficiency in region. Reduced 
transaction costs of cross border trade.  
 + Differentiated impact across 
regions depending on 
competitiveness, overall positive 
effect from efficiency gain.  
 
EN 62   EN Headline Actions  Main focus  environmental impact  economic impact  social impact  
measures, enforced 
governance)  
To foster 
innovation and entrepreneurship  - foster a common innovation 
strategy for the region;   - reinforce R&D cross-boarder 
activities (networking, 
clustering activities, etc) 
- establishment of a body 
monitoring national 
legislation's - impact on entrepreneurship;  
 - introduce tools to facilitate 
access of SMEs to capital. 
(partly new measures)  0 no clear impact, unless focus is 
specifically on environmental innovation  + innovation key for moving regional 
economies up the value added stream, high impact on growth potential. 
+ promotion of SMEs may increase growth 
potential.  
 + impact on regional growth 
potential.  
To integrate the 
labour markets 
and improve education 
opportunities  - foster cross border labour 
mobility 
-increase exchange of students  - develop joint curricula and 
share specialised resources 
(enhancing already existing 
measures)  0 no clear impact  + increasing labour mobility might 
contribute to growth in receiving regions and 
enhances the long term growth potential in the BSR via better allocation efficiency. 
Sending regions might face structural 
adjustment in the short run to medium run. Overall positive impact from increase in 
efficiency. 
+ higher education is a factor of sustainable 
growth potential, well interconnected higher 
education systems in the BSR might attract students.  + short term increase in disparities 
between sending and receiving 
regions. Long term growth potential of the whole BSR increasing. 
+ high education is a factor for long 
term growth of a region.  
 
EN 63   EN Headline Actions  Main focus  environmental impact  economic impact  social impact  
To create an 
integrated energy 
market  coordination of national energy 
strategies in a Baltic Sea 
Energy Strategy;  supply agreements with Russia. 
- implement agreed TEN-E 
projects;   - develop the Baltic Sea 
Energy Market Interconnection 
Plan - enhance market integration 
through ongoing work and 
structures. 
(Already existing measures, 
enforced governance)  + coordination and integration 
increases potential for integrating 
renewable energy into the grid.  + decreased efficiency losses from lack of 
competition in form of lower prices or 
reduced need for subsidies 
+ higher energy security will create 
sustainable growth potential, mainly in the 3 
Baltic States 
+ impact on energy security  + energy security is an important 
aspect for creating growth and 
competitiveness.  
To improve 
energy efficiency  -District heating systems;  
 -close cooperation in 
implementation of EU Energy 
Performance in Buildings Directives. 
(New measures)  +/0 CHP Directive, rationality of 
promoting CHP beyond that is 
questionable. Promoting energy 
efficiency in buildings may decrease GHG emissions, 
however main impact not from 
cooperation, but from EU Directive.  + Small impact on energy security  +/0 May impact household 
spending on energy depending on 
implementation. Energy efficiency 
in buildings may improve attractiveness, however main 
impact not from cooperation, but 
from EU Directive.  
To improve 
custom 
procedures  - monitor Russia's legislative 
and procedural measures;  
 - facilitate physical cross border crossing. 
- improve infrastructure of 
main border crossing points 
(enhancing already existing 
measures)  0/- impact on reducing transaction 
costs of cross border trade 
increases transport levels  + facilitating trade and ties will have a 
positive impact on economic growth. 
+ higher accessibility of  Russian regions. 
 0 no clear impact  
 
EN 64   EN Headline Actions  Main focus  environmental impact  economic impact  social impact  
To improve 
internal and 
external transport links - implement agreed TEN-T 
projects;  
 - coordinate national transport strategies. 
(Already existing measures, 
enforced governance)  +/- depends on mode of transport  + efficient transport is key for 
interconnecting the markets in the BSR with 
implications for growth. 
+ efficient transport systems and 
interconnections will increase accessibility. 
Careful territorial planning might help to reduce landscape consumption. 
 +/- accessibility and efficiency of 
transport will decrease national 
disparities in growth, may increase disparities within Member States  
To attract tourists  - design a tourism strategy for 
the BSR;  
 - promote networking and clustering. 
(enhance existing measures)  + sustainable tourism will lead to 
a valorisation of areas of high 
nature value, promoting preservation  +sustainable tourism will be an important 
factor for future growth and diversification 
of regional economies.  
+sustainable tourism will require 
infrastructure that in creases attractiveness 
and accessibility  + sustainable tourism is an 
important factor for diversification 
of regional economies  
To improve cross 
border law 
enforcement 
activities  - establish a joint customs 
borderand police procedures 
for operational matters. 
(new measure)  0 no clear impact  + increased security will have positive 
effects on accessibility and attractiveness. 
 + important aspect of increasing 
safety and security  
To improve 
maritime safety  - addressing the fragmentation 
of surveillance tools  
- addressing technological 
standards of the fleet 
transporting energy products  + a decrease in environmental 
risks due to increase in compliance with rules  + decreased risk to economic actors overall  + decreased risk to personal injury  
 
EN 65   EN Headline Actions  Main focus  environmental impact  economic impact  social impact  
To improve 
maritime 
surveillance and accident activities  - create a common maritime 
management system;  
 - commonly applied surveillance tools 
- develop the work of 
HELCOM Response Group including intensifying 
cooperation between offshore 
and shoreline responses. 
(Already existing measures, 
enforced governance)  + reduction of risks of ship 
transport for ecosystems 
 ++ maritime management will increase 
accessibility 
++ maritime management will decrease risks 
of hazard 
++ containing accidents reduces costs of 
accidents 
 + increase in quality of 
environment increases quality of 
life 
 
EN 66   EN ANNEX 5 - A COMPARISON OF THE GOVERNANCE OPTIONS FOR EACH 
IDENTIFIED CHALLENGE  
Challenge Governance objectives  No change No additional 
structure Reliance on 
existing 
institution Community 
approach 
Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or 
implement No change (0) No change (0)  No change (0) Improved (+) Eutrophication 
Address lack of 
capacity to make trade-
offs between environmental and 
economic issues No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address lack of 
capacity to make trade-
offs between environmental and 
economic issues  No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) Marine biodiversity 
Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or implement 
environmental 
considerations No change (0) No change (0) No change (0) Improved (+) 
Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or 
implement No change (0) No change (0) No change (0) Improved (+) Hazardous 
substances 
Address lack of 
capacity to make trade-offs between 
environmental and 
economic issues No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address institutional 
weakness to enforce or implement No change (0) No change (0) No change (0) Improved (+) 
Pollution from 
ships 
Address lack of 
capacity to make trade-
offs between 
environmental and 
economic issues No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address lack of 
coordination with other sectors No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) Climate change 
Address low level of 
coordination No change (0) No change in 
governance, Improved 
governance, Improved 
governance, 
 
EN 67   EN Challenge Governance objectives  No change No additional 
structure Reliance on 
existing 
institution Community 
approach 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Internal market and 
trade with 
neighbouring countries Address lack of 
coordination on some 
issues of implementation No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address cooperation 
and coordination among 
organizations at the policy level No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) Innovation  
Address lack of 
capacity to implement No change (0) No change (0) No change (0) Improved (+) 
Entrepreneurship, 
SMEs, human 
resources Address lack of 
coordination at policy 
level between MS in 
particular in labour market No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Agriculture, fisheries, forestry Address lack of 
coordination between 
sectoral policies in 
particular for agriculture and fisheries No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address lack of coordination at 
implementation level of 
TENs No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address limited scope 
of existing initiatives No change (0) Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated strategy (0) Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Energy security, energy market 
integration and 
energy efficiency  
Address lack of 
coordination at policy 
level No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Internal and 
external transport 
links Address lack of 
coordination at 
implementation level  No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
 
EN 68   EN Challenge Governance objectives  No change No additional 
structure Reliance on 
existing 
institution Community 
approach 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address limited scope 
of existing initiatives No change (0) Insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Attractiveness for 
citizens and 
tourists Address lack of 
coordination between 
MS No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Address lack of coordination within and 
between sectors No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) Cross-border crime 
Address limited scope 
of existing initiatives No change (0) Insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Maritime safety Address coordination 
between sectors and fragmentation of effort No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Major emergencies 
at sea and on land Address lack of 
cooperation in some areas No change (0) No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Total  0 0 20+ 42+ 
 
EN 69   EN ANNEX 6 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS  
AIS Automatic Identification System 
Baltic 21 An Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region BaltMet Inno Baltic Metropolises Innovation Strategy Project BaSIC Baltic Sea Innovation Network Centres BASREC Baltic Sea under Baltic  Sea Region Energy Cooperation 
BDF Baltic Development Forum BEMIP Baltic Energy Market and Interconnection Plan BONUS 169 BONUS-169 Joint Baltic Sea Research Programme BONUS ERA-NET BONUS for the Baltic Sea Science – Network of Funding 
Agencies 
BSR Baltic Sea Region BSR CBP Capacity Building Programme on Trans-National Cluster 
and Innovation Systems in the Baltic Sea Region) 
BSTF-OC Task Force on Organised Crime in the Baltic Sea Region 
CBSS Council of the Baltic Sea States CIS Community information EBRD European E-BSR Eastern BSR EGTC European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation EIB European Investment Bank EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency EUSBSR EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region GOFREP Gulf of Finland Reporting System HELCOM Helsinki Commision HELCOM BSAP HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan IA Impact Assessment IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
IGO Intergovernmental Organization IMO International Maritime Organization JOSEFIN Joint SME Finance for Innovation) MRS Mandatory Reporting Systems 
NC Nordic Council 
NCM Nordic Council of Ministers ND Northern Dimension NDEP ND Northern Environmental Partnership NDPHS Northern Dimension Partnershi p in Public Health and Social 
Well Being 
NDPTL Northern Dimension Partners hip on Transport and Logistics 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization NIB Nordic Investment Bank NordFrosk Nordic research board Nordic OCTA Nordic Organised Crime Threat Assessment NORDREGIO Nordic Centre for Spatial Development PSSA particularly sensitive sea area ROCTA Russian OCTA SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises 
 
EN 70   EN SPIN Sustainable Production th rough Innovation in Small and 
Medium sized Enterprises 
TEKES Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation TEN Trans European Network VASAB Vision and Strategi es around the Baltic Sea 
VINNOVA Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems VTS Vessel Traffic W-BSR Western BSR WGCB CBSS Working Group on Cust oms Cooperation and Border 
Crossing Aspects