Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on 'Current and future EU policy on the Baltic Sea region with specific reference to local and regional aspects` (97/C 42/02)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to its decision of 15 November 1995, under Article 198c(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to draw up an Opinion on Current and future EU policy on the Baltic Sea region with specific reference to local and regional aspects and to instruct Commission 1 (Regional Development, Economic Development, Local and Regional Finances) to draft that Opinion;

Having regard to the Draft Opinion (CdR 141/96 rev. 3) adopted by Commission 1 on 21 June 1996 (Rapporteur: Bengt Holgersson);

Having regard to the proceedings of the working group, set up under Article 17(3) of the Bureau standing orders concerning Commission procedures;

Having regard to the COR Opinion on the Northern Dimension of the European Union and Cross-Border Cooperation on the Border between the European Union and the Russian Federation and in the Barents Region (CdR 10/96 fin) ();

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council of 25 October 1994 on Orientations for a Union approach towards the Baltic Sea region;

Having regard to the Council conclusions of 29 May on a Union policy for the Baltic Sea region;

Having regard to the conclusions of the regional conference on interregional cooperation in the North Sea region and the Baltic Sea region, held in Edinburgh on 10 September 1996;

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council of 13 July 1994 on The Europe agreements and beyond: a strategy to prepare the central and eastern countries (CEECs) for accession, and the follow-up document of 27 July 1994;

Having regard to the Commission Resolution of 30 November 1994 on the accession of the CEECs;

Having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council summits held in Copenhagen in June 1993 and in Essen in December 1994 on strategy for accession of the CEECs;

Having regard to the Commission proposal on Interreg IIC;

Having regard to the Commission proposal on the Baltic small projects facility (BSPF), guidelines from 23 November 1995;

Having regard to the Commission Report on the current state of, and perspectives for, cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, 29 November 1995;

Having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council summit held in Madrid in December 1995 concerning a special Baltic Sea programme;

Having regard to the Commission proposal for a Baltic Sea initiative, 10 April 1996;

Having regard to the Baltic Sea States Summit 1996, Presidency Declaration, Visby, 3-4 May 1996,

unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 15th Plenary Session on 13-14 November 1996 (meeting of 13 November).

1. Introduction

1.1. The Berlin wall, symbol of a divided Europe, was pulled down in November 1989. This event heralded a new climate in the Baltic Sea region, with hopes of peace, cooperation and economic progress. Much has happened during the subsequent seven years. The Soviet Union has ceased to exist as a nation, and has been divided up into a number of independent States; Germany has reunited and Sweden and Finland have become members of the EU. The natural prerequisites for close cooperation in the Baltic Sea region have thus been restored. What do they promise for the future?

1.2. Greater openness and less rigid structures can be expected. National boundaries will become less important. The network of contacts between regions and local authorities will play a key role and expand in all spheres: trade and industry, education, culture, environment and, last but not least, the political arena. By far the most vital factor in exploiting these new opportunities to the full is the population's capacity, commitment and skills.

1.3. To realize this potential, it is therefore essential to frame EU policy in the Baltic Sea region so as to encompass the local and regional level. Arguments for this approach, accompanied by practical proposals, are set out below.

2. General comments

2.1. Geographical boundaries

2.1.1. Already the Baltic is in effect an EU internal sea. Nine countries have Baltic coastlines. Four of them - Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden - are EU Member States while Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are associated under Europe Agreements, and Russia under a partnership agreement.

2.1.2. A total of some 50 million people live in what can be considered the heart of the region (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Länder of Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Hamburg, Berlin and Brandenburg, the eight northern Polish counties, Kalingrad and the St Petersburg area). Moreover, the area of influence stretches even further.

2.2. Common history

2.2.1. The past 50-60 years, i.e. since the Second World War, have been something of a hiatus in a region with strong historic ties. The Baltic Sea region is a centuries-old common cultural and trade area with local, regional and national contacts between its peoples.

2.2.2. This shared history means that the new openings now being created can build on an existing community of interests. The region can thus once again take its place on the European political and economic map just as the way is being paved for integration of the Eastern European economies into the EU. In this connection, it should be noted that the Baltic Sea region and Finland are the only parts of the Union to border directly on Russia.

2.2.3. Historically St Petersburg was Russia's gateway to Europe. At the time of the 1917 revolution it was one of Europe's most important cities. St Petersburg is still among the largest European cities, with almost 7 million inhabitants. As a result the development of the City and its surrounding area will have a key influence on development throughout the Baltic Sea region. Undoubtedly it will once again assume its historical role as gateway to Europe.

2.3. Aims of a Baltic Sea policy and cooperation in the Baltic Sea region

2.3.1. In the COR's view, the overriding objective of EU policy in the Baltic Sea region should - as proposed by the Commission in the Baltic Sea Region Initiative - be to promote stability and security, and sustainable economic growth throughout the region. Action should concentrate on three fronts: strengthening of democracy, fostering sustainable economic growth and environmental protection.

As President Santer stated at the Baltic Sea States Summit in Visby on 3-4 May 1996, there is only one way forward, and it can be summarized in one word: 'cooperation`.

2.3.2. The decisive factor for the region is how the new states which have emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union will evolve. Though the economic and political development of the Baltic Sea countries is still overshadowed by great uncertainty, it is perfectly clear that we are at the dawn of a new era. A number of observers, including the OECD, consider that some measure of optimism is warranted provided that active support measures are introduced. Nonetheless, many deficiencies need to be remedied to bring about true democracy and an effective market economy. There is still a strong risk that the upward trend could be replaced by political chaos and economic problems unless energetic measures are taken to support development.

2.3.3. The Baltic Sea region must be viewed as a composite entity. By joining forces, the national, regional and local authorities can achieve more than they can on their own. The COR is also convinced of the fundamental importance of this region's development for the evolution of the Union as a whole.

2.4. Democracy

2.4.1. At an early stage support for the democratization process was already one of the EU's priorities. Back in 1989 it adopted the Phare support programme which focuses, among other things, on measures to assist this area. Similar support has also been made possible under the Tacis programme. At the Copenhagen Summit in 1993, it was decided that the countries of Central and Eastern European may become members of the European Union if they so desire. Accession is possible as soon as an associated country is capable of taking on the obligations inherent in membership, which presupposes that it has achieved stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights and protection of minorities, along with the existence of an effective market economy.

2.4.2. EU efforts should focus on building lasting democratic structures and institutions at national, regional and local level. Here exchanges of experience and know-how between local and regional authorities in the Baltic play a key role in promoting democracy and local self-government. There is also widespread local and regional commitment around the Baltic which provides an important springboard for efforts to foster more deep-rooted democracy.

2.4.3. Another major prerequisite for the continued momentum of the democratization process is greater cooperation in the cultural and educational fields and on action to promote social progress - spheres where local and regional authorities have broad expertise and extensive experience.

2.4.4. To take one example, the switch to a market economy in eastern Europe has also brought social misery in its wake. The experience needed to tackle this situation is lacking. Crime is also on the increase. Concurrently there is no effective social welfare network to deal with the problems that arise. We must therefore pass on experience and know-how on what local and regional action can be taken. This also applies to health care, which is faced with radical restructuring. The expertise and lengthy experience in all these matters which local and regional authorities have in the EU Member States can be of great benefit to the democratization and development process in eastern Europe.

2.5. An effective market economy

2.5.1. Harmonious, sustainable economic growth presupposes, among other things, an effective public infrastructure and a fixed code of conduct for industry. One of the major problems today is therefore the non-existence, or uncertainty, of certain key institutional structures underpinning industry and the market economy, in as broad a range of areas as an operational capital market, property registration, standardization, etc. The introduction of effective national border controls and customs clearance systems is also of prime importance.

2.5.2. Here stress should be laid on the major role played by increased, liberalized trade in forging closer ties between the two parts of the region. This trend is vital for successful restructuring and implementation of a market economy in the region. Here small and medium-sized businesses play a decisive role. EU measures should therefore concentrate on promoting the continued expansion of a market conducive to SMEs. Local and regional authorities can make a valuable contribution in this connection. Several of the region's players already provide direct support and/or cooperate with industry in facilitating the establishment of businesses and contacts in the Baltic Sea region. Further, many inter-regional joint projects in the region can be said to focus to a greater or lesser extent on promoting local and regional industrial development. The day-to-day activities of local and regional authorities also influence economic growth.

2.5.3. Harmonious, sustainable economic growth also necessitates an efficient infrastructure. Here infrastructure is understood to cover information technology, energy and communications. Inadequacies on these three fronts must therefore be tackled and action taken to ensure that the region develops along the right lines. Local and regional authorities have know-how and experience in all three areas which should be used for the benefit of various joint schemes.

2.5.4. Energy projects, such as the establishment of a coherent electricity network in the region, should also have a positive impact on the environment. Investment can probably also be highly beneficial for economic growth. The investment needed is on such a scale that measures will be necessary for several decades to come.

2.5.5. One major prerequisite for developing the network of contacts between the various areas of the Baltic Sea region is a well-developed, effective transport system. Here fast ferries linking up the Baltic Sea areas and extensive regional air communications are of great importance and should therefore receive EU encouragement.

2.5.6. In addition, projects in the communications sector should encompass both the trans-European network and coastal navigation, ports and railways.

2.5.7. Last, but not least, investment in information technology is needed. This sector, which covers a wide range of communications (data, text, picture and sound), can open up entirely new prospects for the region's development. The starting point for successful development is relatively favourable since the western part of the Baltic Sea possibly has greater potential than anywhere in the world while the eastern part has a fairly efficient telecommunications network compared with many other regions of Europe.

2.6. Environment

2.6.1. Perhaps the most important issue, along with democracy, is environmental damage and pollution. In the view of some observers, the environmental situation in certain parts of eastern Europe can be described as verging on catastrophe. This is true in as wide a range of areas as waste management, sewage treatment, air quality, water purification, energy saving measures and, most important, nuclear safety - areas for which local and regional authorities have a high degree of responsibility. From the start exchanges of experience and environmental protection schemes have received priority attention in cooperation between local and regional authorities in the Baltic Sea region and are increasing in importance.

2.6.2. All the countries with waterways flowing into the Baltic have agreed at ministerial level to implement the joint comprehensive action programme for the Baltic 1992-2012. Successful implementation of the programme is vital both for the Baltic coast states and for the EU as a whole. EU support is of particular importance here.

2.6.3. The action programme sets out the measures needed to curb the pollution problem in the Baltic Sea. In all 132 sources of pollution ('hot spots`) have been identified as requiring intervention. These sources range from municipal sewage outlets to industry and agriculture. The programme also deals with the need for legislation and regulations and the transfer of know-how between different levels in the region. The estimated cost of implementation is ECU 18 000 million.

2.6.4. The Helsinki Commission recently completed a progress report to ascertain how far work on sewage treatment had advanced. This report shows that quite a lot has been done since 1990. Unfortunately completely untreated sewage and industrial waste is discharged from several sources straight into the Baltic. One of the worst examples is the St Petersburg area, which is one of the main sources of pollution.

2.6.5. One of the greatest difficulties, according to the progress report, is that the Baltic countries, Russia and Poland do not provide state guarantees for loans from the Nordic countries and international banks. There is also no system for levying water and sewage taxes to fund the expansion of purification plants.

2.6.6. These environmental problems cause damage to the Baltic Sea, and hence to fisheries - a key commercial activity and recreation and tourist attraction, vital to the natural environment. Measures must therefore be taken to secure the Baltic's future as a living sea.

2.7. Local and regional structure

2.7.1. Regions and local authorities are playing an ever-increasing role in European cooperation and the integration process. New constellations of cooperation between local and regional players in the EU and its neighbour countries have formed in recent years. As will be seen below, the Baltic Sea region is a shining example. Here it is worth noting that the western Baltic areas have possibly the politically strongest local and regional structure in the EU.

2.7.2. For optimum impact, measures must be tailored to the structural conditions of the target area. The local and regional map in the Baltic Sea region is far from clear-cut. For purposes of simplification, five different systems can be distinguished:

a) Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland, where local authorities and county councils (in Finland intermunicipal regional authorities) play an important role and are responsible for a substantial share of public sector activity. They have extensive independent powers and, in many respects, are self-governing. Their activities are largely financed by the taxes they are entitled to levy.

b) Germany, with a federal structure in which power is shared between the Federal Government and 16 Länder, which have the authority to legislate on certain local and regional issues. In Germany, the Länder also answer for some of the activities which take place at local and regional level in the Nordic countries. The lowest level is 'Gemeinde`, followed by the municipal level, 'Kreis`. In addition, there are 'Kreisfreistädte`. Local authorities' responsibilities vary from Land to Land but their basic structure and general powers are the same.

c) Poland, where much progress has been made towards setting up local authorities with autonomous local powers. This reform has largely been influenced by the model of the Nordic countries. The first free local elections were held in Poland in May 1990. However, local self-government traditions date back several centuries.

d) Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, where the local authorities to varying degrees are responsible for public sector activities. However, the Baltic countries have very little tradition of local and regional democracy so that it is generally necessary to start from scratch. Nonetheless, they have now reached a stage where reforms have produced the beginnings of local and regional structures.

e) Russia, which has no local democracy tradition. As a result, one problem is that the 'old` Soviet system to some extent co-exists with the emerging new structures. However, there have recently been some positive changes at local and regional level.

2.7.3. It will be clear that there are substantial differences between the nine Baltic Sea countries. A variety of measures are therefore needed to take these differing structures into account. In view of the rapid pace of change, the various programmes targeted at the region need to be more flexible in order to achieve optimum results.

2.8. Existing local and regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea region

2.8.1. Baltic Sea cooperation is a top priority for many local and regional authorities there. Such cooperation, which has spread rapidly since the collapse of communism, encompasses a wide range of spheres (democracy, social and cultural affairs, environmental protection, education/training, industry, etc.).

2.8.2. Commitment is motivated by a variety of factors, and perhaps above all by humanitarian, democratic and ecological considerations. Industrial promotion schemes in a region which offers great long-term potential for harmonious sustainable economic growth in Europe also deserve a mention.

2.8.3. As will be evident from the appraisal of local and regional authority action in the Baltic Sea region, there are a large number of projects involving thousands of people. Experience shows that practical projects operated by local and regional players are frequently the most cost-effective and productive. The same conclusions are reached in surveys carried out by the Swedish parliament. The report says, for instance, that 'closer cooperation under town twinning arrangements seems cost-effective in comparison with commercial alternatives` and that 'funding - in terms of Swedish official aid funding - has been modest`. 'The low costs and large amount of voluntary work have meant that official expenditure has obtained a lot of aid`.

2.8.4. The reasons include the obvious value of these measures and personal involvement in project implementation, where the beneficiaries have themselves taken charge. Other influential factors are:

- increasing awareness of the need to tailor measures and solutions to local and regional conditions,

- greater scope for local and regional authorities to take inter-sectoral action and encourage cooperation among the various players,

- closeness to the citizen means that problems and solutions frequently first become apparent at local and regional level.

2.8.5. In addition, cooperation has led to extensive personal contacts and fostered a mutual insight into each other's circumstances. This is important since action in the region is most effective and incisive if rooted in day-to-day cooperation between people at these levels.

2.8.6. However, existing cooperation has also highlighted a number of obstacles to further joint action by local and regional authorities (e.g. inadequate financial support, failure to coordinate ongoing joint projects or to give sufficient publicity to the lessons learned).

2.8.7. Many joint projects are currently small-scale pilot projects receiving limited financial support. These projects often provide a suitable basis for further expansion. However, it has proved difficult to move on to larger, more ambitious projects (e.g. under Phare) with very different financial and organizational requirements. Nonetheless, the COR feels that greater opportunities should be provided in future for transferring small-scale projects to larger programmes.

2.8.8. The outline of a new development phase in Baltic Sea cooperation emerges. The first phase is giving way to broader and deeper cooperation between local authorities and regions. In future action will focus far more on matters relating to long-term development throughout the region.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Current and future EU policy in the Baltic Sea region

3.1.1. The COR basically endorses the Commission's proposal for a Baltic Sea region initiative, along with several of the proposed new programmes to promote local and regional cooperation there. However, to optimize implementation, it would suggest a number of adjustments.

3.1.2. The COR feels that EU action to date has concentrated too much on a 'top-down` approach, with emphasis on the national level, within the framework of the Phare and Tacis programmes. In the COR's view, these programmes' administrative procedures and transparency need to be improved. In addition, the rules governing the various programmes have not been tailored to structural conditions in the Baltic Sea region. Simple and flexible procedures in these minor projects are necessary to motivate cooperation.

3.1.3. Integration of Russia in the Baltic Sea cooperation programme is extremely important. The COR supports arrangements where Russian local and regional authorities are integrated in the cooperation under the same conditions as authorities in the Phare area.

3.2. ECOS-Ouverture

3.2.1. One example is the ECOS-Ouverture programme which aims to promote cooperation between regions and networks involving at least two regions/local authorities and a partner in a Phare country. Measures relate to modernization of local administration, the environment and economic development. However, certain requirements must be met in order for a project to be eligible, e.g.:

a) at least one partner in the project must be from an objective 1 or objective 6 area,

b) each partner must have a minimum population of 30 000 inhabitants.

3.2.2. This requirement creates problems in the Baltic Sea region. The only local authorities in any objective 6 area in Sweden or Finland which satisfy these conditions are Östersund, Skellefteå and Rovaniemi, and the only other potential participants in the region are in northern Germany (e.g. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, East Berlin and Brandenburg, objective 1).

3.2.3. The aim of ECOS-Ouverture is primarily 'to reinforce economic and social cohesion by promoting the involvement of regions and cities from less favoured areas of the European Union in East/West and North/South cooperation`. 'Less favoured areas` are objective 1 or objective 6 areas. As regards 'East/West cooperation`, in practice the Baltic Sea region has no 'less favoured areas`, except for those named above.

3.2.4. The second and third aims of ECOS-Ouverture are 'to assist in the economic and political transition of central and eastern European cities and regions` and 'to contribute to regional development and the modernization of local and regional authorities`. Local and regional authorities in the new Central and Eastern European Countries have great need of local democracy models and inspiration, mainly from western European areas.

3.2.5. Another problem highlighted is that the ECOS-Ouverture funding conditions (minimum ECU 225 000 per project in support for EU participants) result in many local and regional authorities refraining from participation. In addition, the rules on aid (maximum ECU 75 000 per project for central and eastern European participants) mean that many of their local and regional authorities have great difficulties in participating on equal terms.

3.2.6. The current rules therefore prevent many authorities from even attempting to take part. The COR therefore recommends that the rules be amended as soon as possible.

3.3. Trans-regional cooperation

3.3.1. The COR sees the trans-regional programmes as an excellent way of speeding up the integration process in the Baltic Sea region. The Interreg IIA programmes eliminate, for instance, several of the obstacles represented by national frontiers. The rules are also largely suited to the structural conditions existing in the border regions concerned. The EU's goal is to support economically less favoured border regions and help the EU's external border areas to adapt to their new responsibilities as internal market frontier. Hence areas other than those already assigned as Interreg areas in the Baltic Sea region should also be eligible for support. However, in the COR's view, this can only be achieved if satisfactory customs and border controls are put in place. Moreover, the COR feels that the Phare and Tacis programmes should be incorporated more flexibly into Interreg.

3.3.2. The Baltic Sea Cross-Border Cooperation programme has been implemented as a separate part of the EU Phare programme. Since 1994 many projects have been accepted but the cooperation suffers from poor administration. Implementation is starting only now in 1996. Plans to create a technical implementation office to the Baltic countries are under preparation. Recently representatives of the regions have been invited to participate in the process. In the future the Baltic Sea Cross-Border Cooperation programme must be developed towards real promotion of cooperation between local and regional authorities.

3.4. New programmes

3.4.1. The Commission has proposed two new action programmes for the region: the Baltic small project facilities (BSPF) programme and the Interreg IIC Community initiative. In the second half of the year, the BSPF programme and the current invitation for tender entitled 'Baltic Small Projects Facility: Innovative Actions` should be assessed with the participating States and with experienced players from the regions and should be tailored more closely to conditions in the Baltic Sea region for the purpose of a future tender:

a) for the first time a programme focuses on the Baltic Sea as a composite entity and pays special attention to the local and regional level. However, the funds available are merely procured by redistributing existing article 10 and Phare resources. The Baltic Small Projects Facility Innovative Actions Programme is welcome and its regulations are more practical than those for ECOS-Ouverture. The continuation of BSPF should be guaranteed with further financing and long-term commitment from the EU. Russia should be urgently included in the facility, with the exception that, in such cooperation, the western partner should be also able to apply;

b) Interreg IIC covers three different areas of action, including spatial planning and cross-border cooperation measures. The proposal lists the Baltic Sea region as one of the regions where cooperation is to be promoted. The Interreg IIC initiative does not cover Poland, the Baltic countries or Russia, where the spatial planning system is poorly developed. Special emphasis on the promotion of regional development and spatial planning in Poland, the Baltic countries and Russia through the Phare and Tacis programmes is needed in tandem with Interreg IIC.

3.4.2. The action programmes and projects are to be co-funded by the Member States and the Commission. The proposal provides that Community spending in regions not eligible for aid under objectives 1, 2, 5b or 6 should receive a smaller share of the Community contribution. In the case of the Eastern and Central European and Baltic Sea region countries, activities can be co-financed under the Phare and Tacis programmes. The result is that, for instance, large parts of southern and central Sweden, Denmark, southern Finland and certain parts of northern Germany cannot qualify for such aid since they do not fit into the relevant categories. The purpose of classifying a region under a particular objective is to be able, with EU support, to tackle the problems holding up local development. However, the COR feels that cooperation in the region can achieve a greater impact if the emphasis is more on partnership between less developed and more prosperous regions.

3.4.3. Under the proposal, cooperation must usually involve at least three countries, including two Member States. In the COR's view, it is doubtful whether this stipulation is suited to conditions in the region. In many cases it would be more natural to involve only two countries.

3.4.4. For purposes of drawing up programmes, the Interreg IIC proposal suggests both that the Member States and regional and local authorities put forward a coordinated strategy for existing areas and attendant proposals for measures, and that the Commission prioritize proposals drawn up in conjunction with local authorities. The COR welcomes this approach and regards 'bottom-up` action as a prerequisite for success.

4. Conclusions and further proposals for action

4.1. Existing and future action should be based on a common development blueprint for the entire Baltic Sea region. The various players in the region can achieve more together than working individually. The need for common goals, increased financial resources, coordination and transparency is obvious.

4.2. Cooperation between local and regional authorities in the Baltic Sea region can be valuable in ensuring that EU Baltic Sea policy aims are implemented and attained. This applies in such spheres as development of democratic structures and institutions, promoting harmonious, sustainable economic growth at local and regional level and efforts to protect the environment.

4.3. For purposes of implementation, EU policy in the Baltic Sea region should be framed to place far greater emphasis than hitherto on local and regional political interests, needs and capacities and make use of local and regional know-how. Experience, particularly from ongoing bilateral cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, has shown, for instance, that practical schemes run at local and regional level frequently prove the most cost-effective and productive. Hence the importance of giving local and regional authorities a more active role in both the planning of future operations and the implementation of various programmes in the region.

4.4. Day-to-day cooperation between local and regional players provides the greatest scope for effective, incisive action. The building up of an extensive contact network is also essential for success. EU policy should therefore aim to involve as many people at these levels as possible in the countries concerned. The breadth and diversity of contacts also makes a valuable contribution to the democratization process. Large populations in the east who for decades have been cut off from the other part of the Baltic Sea region are now called upon to work and act under democratic conditions. The Union can provide support by establishing a wide net of contacts between inhabitants throughout the region.

4.5. Local and regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea region is extensive, in terms of both scope and scale. In short, a solid structure exists for future cooperation to build on. One form of cooperation which could be expanded is town twinning schemes. The networks of local and regional players which have recently been set up in the region are another. These up-and-running organizations will be particularly useful when implementing EU initiatives in the area.

4.6. Experience shows that joint projects in the region give way to more solid structures aiming at long-term cooperation over a period of several years, to be converted into more comprehensive plans and programmes for the region. The COR feels that continuity is needed so that projects can come into their own and achieve lasting effects.

4.7. Future programmes and working methods should take account of the region's structural conditions. Owing to the rapid pace of change, the various programmes targeted on the region will have to be more flexible in order to optimize their impact. A more adaptable approach to the coordination and combination of existing programmes is also advocated.

4.8. Community operations should not be confined to areas eligible under objectives 1, 2, 5b and 6. Dynamic action presupposes that, where possible, other regions too have an opportunity to participate actively, under the same conditions as those which qualify under the relevant categories, in the measures backed by both the Baltic Sea Region Initiative, and the Presidency Declaration from the Baltic Sea States Summit in Visby.

4.9. The COR fully endorses the implementation of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) action programme to address the various problems in the Baltic Sea region during 1992-2012. Moreover, it would also draw attention to local and regional responsibility for implementing the measures, and to the broad expertise and extensive experience to be found at this level.

4.10. The COR is in favour of developing the Council of Baltic Sea States (CBSS) as a political forum within which various interests and schemes launched by the Commission and national, regional and local authorities can be coordinated.

4.11. There is no need for new administrative structures in the Baltic Sea region. However, it is necessary to build on existing structures, to provide better back-up for cooperation at local and regional level. These could, for instance, provide a composite platform and liaison framework for cooperation, identify potential projects, promote the formation of networks, upgrade some pilot projects into more ambitious programmes, etc. There is a need to coordinate the wide range of initiatives, programmes and institutions in the Baltic region; all planning should, however, take account of the need (a) to avoid duplication of the work of liaison bodies (e.g. the Baltic Council Secretariat) and (b) to maintain transparent, flexible administrative structures.

4.12. Furthermore, the COR believes it is important that experience and lessons learned from past projects should be heeded and passed on to the players concerned both in the region and at the Commission. The COR therefore intends to undertake a number of case studies in autumn 1996, in order to shed light on why some projects were successful where others failed. The study will also answer questions concerning what has been achieved, how it was achieved, the resources deployed and where they came from.

Brussels, 13 November 1996.

The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions

Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA

() OJ No C 337, 11. 11. 1996, p. 7.