EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/23

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region

(2010/C 232/04)

I. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (COM(2009) 248 final) is an important document from the point of view of the development of the European Union. It creates the framework for regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea area but at the same time opens the way for the emergence of macro-regions within the European Union. EU enlargement encouraged the political trend towards the creation of macro-regions. Member States which are geographically close to each other have common challenges and objectives, to which they respond by seeking solutions through regional cooperation.

2. The European Commission communication notes that while the Baltic Sea Region is a highly heterogeneous area, the countries concerned share many common interests and depend on each other in many ways. It further notes that the Baltic Sea Region could be a model of regional cooperation where new ideas and approaches can be tested and developed over time as best practice examples. The Committee of the Regions would point out that the strategy should support the aims of cohesion policy of EU. Large disparities exist at regional and sub-regional level with regard to public services and infrastructure;

3. The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is primarily a question of EU internal policy, covering both actions falling within EU competence and matters falling outside it. In implementing the strategy the aim is to promote better policy coordination and more effective legislation by applying an integrated approach.

4. In the communication the Commission states that: ‘Better coordination and a more strategic use of Community programmes are key ingredients, especially at a time of crisis, to ensure that funds and policies in the region contribute fully to the strategy.’ It has been emphasised many contexts that the strategy must bring added value for the EU. The existing financial and legal framework also offers opportunities for effective action through closer cooperation and coordination.

5. The European Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is an important document not only for the Baltic but also for other emerging macro-regions in Europe. The Baltic Sea is a pilot area for the formation of macro-regions in the EU. The solutions reached in the Baltic for promoting and implementing the strategy will serve as models and create good practice for other potential macro-regions. Regional and local players in the Baltic Sea Region will establish practices for other regions in Europe. For example, the Commission is in the process of preparing a strategy document for the Danube region. Similarly, discussions are under way on the need for corresponding strategy documents for other macro-regions.

6. The emergence of macro-regions in the EU is not a clear-cut matter. From the viewpoint of regions and local communities it is necessary that cooperation between them intensifies and expands to embrace the EU's various policy areas and also cuts across policy areas. Macro-regions should not evolve into a new institutional level between the EU and Member States, but should be an instrument of cooperation between regions, Member States and the Union. Macro-regions will only be able to bring added value to European integration if they increase cooperation between the national and the local and regional levels, leading to more effective EU policy.

7. According to the communication, the extent of the macro-region varies depending on the topic. It is essentially an EU internal strategy covering eight member States. But the communication points out that close cooperation between the EU and Russia is also necessary to tackle many of the regional challenges. The Committee of the Regions would stress that Norway is also an important non-EU partner in the Baltic Sea Region. In addition, there is a need for constructive cooperation with Belarus.

External dimension

8. Although regional strategies are EU internal strategies, they are also potentially important for non-EU states bordering macro-regions. There are two states in the Baltic which directly border the Baltic Sea Region, Norway and Russia. Norway is already tied to the Baltic Sea Region through the EEA Agreement. The Agreement links Norway to the EU's internal market. Norway's position will not change in this regard. However, the Baltic Sea Strategy includes policy areas which are not covered by the EEA Agreement. One such sector is, for instance, the European Union's maritime policy, which is of great importance for Norway and in the implementation of which Norway has a key role to play.

9. Russia's position and relationship with the EU is another matter. This relationship is governed by separate agreements and programmes. The basis for the relationship is the Agreement on Cooperation and Partnership between the Russian Federation and the EU and it’s Member States (1994). In addition, there are a large number of agreements between Russia and the EU on specific matters. There is also a mechanism for political consultation between the parties. Implementation of the agreements has not progressed as expected, nor has it been possible to reach a revised agreement on cooperation and partnership, despite efforts to this end.

10. The relationship between Russia and the EU in the Baltic Sea Region is based to a large extent on bilateral relations and programmes.

11. The Commission communication on the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region gives emphasis to the EU's Northern Dimension policy. It states that ‘… relations with third countries should be conducted primarily through the Northern Dimension with the option to use alternative channels when useful’.

12. The Northern Dimension policy – the EU's political strategy – complements the Baltic Sea Strategy. And it is through the Northern Dimension policy that Iceland is also linked to cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region.

13. In the implementation of the strategy, greater consideration should be given to issues related the strategy's external dimension. The scope of the Baltic Sea's external dimension should be widened to include the Baltic catchment area countries of Belarus and Ukraine. Closer involvement of these states in the implementation of the strategy would help bring them closer to European values.

14. The successful implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy depends on the involvement of third countries in the region. For example, in the areas of environmental issues, transport, logistics and national security issues there is a need for cooperation which transcends the EU's external borders. Energy policy in the Baltic Sea Region is also an area of Baltic Sea policy which extends beyond the EU's external borders.

15. Practical implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy takes the form of projects on the ground. This does not necessarily involve extensive political linkages. It is precisely here in the context of projects on the ground that there is an opportunity to demonstrate the mutual benefit that is to be derived, for example, from working with Russia.

16. Regions and local communities have an important role to play in implementing the internal and external dimension of the strategy. Regions and local communities are involved in a large number of partnerships which transcend the EU's external borders. For example, town-twinning schemes offer opportunities for exploiting various elements of the strategy. To help advance the strategy, the EU and other players in the region should look for and devise ways of strengthening the strategy's external dimension in order to improve its implementation.

17. The EU's normal funding programmes and instruments are used in the Baltic Sea Region. A special challenge is to use these instruments to serve the goals set in the Baltic Sea Strategy. This is all the more important given that the Commission communication does not contain any proposals on extra funding or other additional resources. It is important to ensure that existing EU resources which are relevant can be used to the full both now and in future programming periods for the achievement of the strategy's goals.

18. The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is – and must be – founded on application of the subsidiarity principle. In other words, the strategy should focus primarily on dealing with issues that cannot be solved by national or local means alone. The communication presents strategy's priorities in the form of four key tasks:

— to enable the emergence of a sustainable environment

— to enhance the region's prosperity

— to improve the region's accessibility and attractiveness

— to ensure safety and security in the region.

19. For the implementation of the strategy the Commission communication is document is accompanied by a separate action plan. The action plan has three levels. It first defines four pillars which correspond to the four key challenges identified above. The pillars are divided into 15 priority areas, which in turn are divided into 78 flagship projects. The priority areas have been selected from the point of view of implementing the strategy, either on the grounds that they promote the achievement of the goals or provide an opportunity to tackle the Baltic Sea Region's main challenges. The themes they cover are general and often fairly very wide-ranging. In contrast, the flagship projects are concrete and of a more practical nature.

20. When preparing the strategy, the Commission engaged in wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders, which had three main components: non-papers from governments and other official bodies in the region; stakeholder events to allow official, NGO and private sector participants to contribute their expertise; public consultation though the Europa web site, in which a large number of players in the Baltic Sea Region participated.

21. In all, 109 stakeholder groups took part in the consultation process, including all the region's eight Member States and the three non-EU states (Russia, Norway and Belarus). In addition, 48 intergovernmental organisations and 31 regional and local authorities voiced their views, as did 19 representatives from the private sector. The consultation process brought forward a large number of ideas and proposals from regional stakeholders concerning the preparation of the strategy.

22. The parties which took part in the consultation exercise, in particular the representatives of organisations and regional and local authorities, should be afforded an ongoing opportunity to participate in the development of the strategy. The Committee of the Regions feels that much attention needs to be paid to the evaluation and follow-up of the communication and its accompanying action plan. The proposal contained in the communication to hold an annual forum is good but does not go far enough. The Committee believes that evaluation should be continuous and should be opened up to all stakeholders wishing to participate.

23. On the basis of the consultation process, the Commission concludes that no new institutions are needed for the implementation of the strategy. There are numerous cooperation schemes in the Baltic Sea Region and there is no reason to create new ones, which might only increase administrative costs without contributing to effective action. Hundreds of different organisations and networks exist in the Baltic Sea Region. Many of these were established in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Cold War system to help states seeking EU membership adjust to European cooperation.

24. Despite the large number of organisations and networks in the region, many of them have lost their raison d’être and ceased to be necessary following the 2004 enlargement. Organisations which were originally set up to promote membership have not always been able to find a new role and tasks for themselves. The Baltic Sea Strategy and its implementation might offer new tasks for such organisations. There is a need for all stakeholders to jointly consider and assess how extensive a network is appropriate for implementing the Baltic Sea Strategy..

25. Activation of organisations and networks calls for an extensive information and communication campaign on the contents of the strategy and the opportunities which it offers. The Commission does not draw attention to this aspect in its proposal. The Committee of the Regions recommends that the European Commission's representations in the Members States be required to organise suitably extensive and wide-ranging information activities.

26. However, the Committee would emphasise that cooperation between regional and local authorities has increased following enlargement and the organisations and networks established by them have become more active. These groups demonstrated considerable interest during the consultation exercise and the positions they put forward were often very thoroughly prepared.

27. The Commission communication also states the following: ‘Not just a strategy. There must be actions – concrete, visible actions – to overcome the challenges facing the region. In its action plan, therefore, the Commission insists that Member States and other stakeholders take responsibility as lead partners for specific priority areas and flagship projects …’.

28. The Committee of the Regions would point out that this wish was not fulfilled in the strategy's first approval stage. In the action plan the responsibility for implementation of the priority areas has been given primarily to Member States. Only one of the 15 priority areas has been allocated to the regional level. This concerns the development of regional tourism policy, where the responsibility for coordination has been given to the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In the same priority area, the responsibility for promotion of health has been given to the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-Being (NDPHS). The aim is that implementation of the priority areas should take place in close cooperation with the Commission.

29. The regions had not been allocated the lead role in any of the (78) flagship projects at the time the communication was adopted. The flagship projects are precisely the projects where regions could play a considerable role. The Committee of the Regions is of the view that when decisions on flagship projects are taken in the future regions and local authorities should be given the opportunity to play an active part in their implementation.

Implementation of the strategy

30. The Committee of the Regions notes that the communication gives little consideration to outlining the strategy's implementation process. The Baltic Sea Strategy is a pilot for a new kind of macro-regional cooperation, key elements of which are the involvement of players at different levels of government and coordinated action. The Committee of the Regions urges the Commission to place special emphasis on supporting flexible but purposeful implementation and governance of the strategy.

31. The communication sets out a three-level approach for implementation which is broadly consistent with the multi-level governance model. The approach presented is in line with the Community method employed in the European Union. The proposal binds implementation to standard EU procedure. The Council has been given responsibility for policy development, on the basis of recommendations from the Commission. It is also the Commission's task to provide the Council with regular progress reports on the strategy. The Committee of the Regions believes that it is important to apply the Community method in order to guarantee that multi-level governance is implemented. By doing so, this will ensure that the regional and local level take part in the implementation of the strategy.

32. In accordance with the multi-level governance approach, the Commission has a key role in the implementation of the strategy. The Commission will be responsible for ‘coordination, monitoring, reporting, facilitation of the implementation and follow-up. In partnership with the stakeholders of the region, it should prepare regular progress reports, and use its power of initiative to make proposals for adaptation of the strategy and action plan whenever these are required. Coordination should keep under review how the use of funds is contributing to the priorities of the strategy’.

33. The communication does not contain any proposals on how the work of the Commission might be organised with the strategy in mind. The starting point is that ‘Programming authorities can review the allocation criteria and facilitate the selection of projects aligned with the strategy. Furthermore, the Commission will welcome appropriate modifications of the programmes where necessary’. There is a danger here that, in view of the Commission's many areas of responsibility, not enough resources will be allocated within the Commission to implementation of the strategy. It might be useful to set up multi-sector ‘task force’-type teams of officials within the Commission to manage tasks related to the strategy. The Commission has such a crucial role to play in the implementation of the strategy that it should be allocated adequate resources for planning, monitoring, coordination and reporting.

34. The third level of implementation comprises ‘partners’. The practical implementation level is fundamental for the implementation of the strategy. The Commission document provides only a cursory description of this level. The idea is that implementation on the ground and the implementing bodies will be aligned with the objectives of the strategy. Here too the role of the Commission is crucial: ‘The Commission will work in partnership with the other institutions, Member States and regions, international financing institutions, transnational programming bodies and inter-governmental organisations such as HELCOM to identify coordinating bodies at the level of priority areas and lead partners for flagship project’.

35. The Commission communication defines a macro-region as ‘an area covering a number of administrative regions but with sufficient issues in common to justify a single strategic approach’. The definition refers to administrative regions rather than countries, which implies that regional and local government players are on a par with national governments, constituting the basis of the region. The Committee of the Regions takes the view that regional and local players should be given a prominent role in this process. Regions and local players are the level closest to citizens. Visible input from them could help to bring the strategy closer to citizens, which is a key requirement for its success. Proximity and the legitimacy associated with it are a sine qua non for the success of the strategy. These principles can best be applied in partnership with regional and local level players.

36. The local and regional level also has a sound knowledge of the Baltic Sea Regions’ conditions and needs. Regional and local players have long and effective experience of working together with each other and with NGOs. It is also worth remembering that local and regional players also have long experience of tripartite activity with the European Commission and Member State governments in managing EU financial instruments and policies. They are competent bodies as regards EU policies in general. Moreover, it is to be noted that regional and local players showed great interest and involvement in the stakeholder consultations.

37. The Committee of the Regions hopes that the Commission will recognise the central role and capabilities of regional and local level players in implementing the strategy. The regional and local level should be given a key position as an established participant in the multi-level governance system when identifying and selecting coordinating bodies at the level of priority areas and lead partners for flagship projects.

38. The Committee of the Regions notes with satisfaction that, at the request of the European Parliament, an appropriation has been included in the EU budget for promoting the strategy. The Committee feels that the appropriation, whilst modest in relation to needs, is an encouraging first step and hopes that it will be increased in future years. The Committee believes that the funds should be targeted especially at enhancing the capabilities and possibilities of the regions and numerous stakeholder groups operating in the Baltic Sea Region to participate in improving the implementation of the strategy.

39. The Committee of the Regions supports the idea of an annual forum but does not think that it is sufficient from the point of view of monitoring implementation of the strategy. It is not enough that the forum ‘bring together partners concerned with different aspects of the strategy, including from interested third countries, to review and discuss the progress of the strategy and to make recommendations on implementation’. Overseeing implementation of the strategy also requires more explicit monitoring in connection with implementation on the ground. It should be considered here how best to provide information about the results of the various measures. A way should also be found of gathering existing data on the Baltic Sea Region so as to support the achievement of the objectives set by the strategy

40. Frequent references are made in the action plan to the importance of stakeholder commitment. Successful implementation of the strategy requires strong political commitment on the part of players in the region. Securing and maintaining political commitment is a fundamental issue. The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region is being published in exceptional conditions, in the midst of a severe global recession.

41. The Baltic Sea economic region is being hard hit by the recession. Not so long ago, the Baltic Sea economic region was the fastest growing region in Europe. Now in June 2009, at the time of the publication of the action plan, it is one of the regions most badly affected by the crisis. The existence of the crisis may be a factor that helps to speed up implementation of the action plan. The Baltic Sea Strategy could offer new ingredients in efforts to overcome the economic crisis. On the other hand, the action plan estimates that the timetable for the implementation of the measures contained in the strategy could be delayed because of the crisis in public finances.

42. The assumption that stakeholders are committed to the strategy is based on the active interest shown by them during the preparation of the strategy. Member State governments are in a key position when it comes to commitment. Governments set the objectives for the strategy and decide on its broad outlines and priorities. But they also play a crucial role in creating interest and commitment among other players in the region. Through their decisions, governments must create conditions conducive to the active involvement of other stakeholders.

43. Institutions have been set up in the Baltic Sea Region for inter-governmental cooperation. Cooperation between the Nordic countries, which started in the 1950s, has its own bodies, namely the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Similarly, the Baltic Council of Ministers and the Baltic Council were set up between the three Baltic States. In 1992 two organisations covering the whole Baltic Sea area were set up, the Council of the Baltic Sea States Baltic (CBSS) and a corresponding body for parliamentarians, the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC).

44. Stepping-up inter-governmental cooperation does not require the establishment of new bodies. Rather, what is needed is that the existing institutions are made more effective and used as arenas for the implementation of the Baltic Sea Strategy. The Baltic Sea Strategy would also give these organisations a new area of activity.

45. The role of the three organisations comprised of parliamentarians could be to provide a forum for politicians to discuss Baltic Sea policy. This would help to increase political parties’ and parliamentarians interest in and commitment to Baltic Sea policy. This could be very important from the point of view of implementing the Baltic Sea Strategy.

46. In addition, other organisations and bodies for cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region are potential arenas for implementing the Baltic Sea Strategy and, above all, for securing stakeholders’ commitment to it. The Baltic Sea Strategy might also help to spur the activities of many organisations which have lost their raison d’être.