Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region - Impact Assessment Summary {COM(2009) 248 final} {SEC(2009) 702}
Date: 2009-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, cooperation policy, energy policy, environmental protection, pollution control measures, regional cooperation, regional integration, regional policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 10.6.2009 
SEC(2009) 703 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION  
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE 
REGIONS 

concerning the 

European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

Impact Assessment Summary 

{COM(2009) 248 final} 
{SEC(2009) 702} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

The European Council Presidency Conclusions of 14 December 2007 indicated that “without 
prejudice to the integrated maritime policy, the European Council invites the Commission to 
present  an  EU  strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  region  at  the  latest  by  June  2009.  This  strategy 
should  inter  alia  help  to  address  the  urgent  environmental  challenges  related  to  the  Baltic 
Sea."  The  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  should  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  strategy.  The  Northern  Dimension  framework 
provides the basis for external cooperation with third countries in the Baltic Sea region. 

The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) is a highly heterogenous area in economic, environmental and 
cultural terms, yet its members share many common resources and demonstrate considerable 
interdependence. This means that actions in one area can very quickly have consequences for 
other parts or the whole of the region.  

•  The  environmental  challenges  identified  in  the  region  are  eutrophication,  marine 
biodiversity,  hazardous  substances,  pollution  from  ships,  climate  change.  There  is  a 
relatively solid consensus in the BSR to work collectively to address the specific problems 
of the Baltic Sea through HELCOM. However, HELCOM suffers from weak capacity to 
implement  and  enforce  measures.  Furthermore,  many  of  the  sectoral  interests  such  as 
fishing, agriculture, industry and the 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  internal  market  and  trade  with  neighbouring 
countries,  innovation,  entrepreneurship,  SMEs  and  human  resources,  agriculture,  forestry 
and  fisheries.  Cross  border  structures  to  address  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  address  strong  differences  in  economic  performance  between  the 
East  and  West.  There  is  an  argument  for  increasing  cooperation  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,  attractiveness  for 
citizens and tourists. In the case of energy and transport networks, while there are strategic 
frameworks for identifying priorities, there 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-alignment of national and EU funds. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

•  The  safety  and  security  challenges  have  been  identified  as  cross  border  crime,  maritime 
safety  and  security,  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  responsible  for  certain  issues  linked  to  major 
maritime accidents. 

The key problem in the region is not a lack of existing initiatives or governance structures. It 
is  rather  the  failure  of  largely  fragmented  existing  governance  structures  to  provide  a 
sufficiently robust framework in which the priority issues of the BSR can be addressed in an 
integrated manner, which addresses potential policy conflicts and trade-offs between sectors. 
Collective action must therefore provide a framework in which stakeholders can make a step 
change  in  taking  the  actions  necessary  to  realise  the  region’s  full  economic,  environmental 
and social potential. 

In the context of the Baltic Sea Strategy, no legislative 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  States.  The  strategy  and  action  plan  have 
been brought forward at the request of the Member States and third countries concerned.  

The general objective of the strategy is therefore to address 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 sustainable and prosperous 
place,  benefiting  from  increased  accessibility  and  attractiveness,  and  ensuring  higher 
standards of safety and security for its citizens.  

The  specific  objective  is  to  develop  a  framework  for  the  individual  challenges  and  address 
deficiencies in governance structures to ensure that a range of strategic actions (in the form of 
an action plan) to deal with the challenges are implemented in the most efficient, effective and 
coherent  way.  To  achieve  this  it  will  be  necessary  to  achieve  three  objectives:  improved 
coordination and coherence; strengthened institutional capability to ensure implementation of 
actions; improved visibility and accountability. 

There are many options for improving the capacity to address strategic challenges. However, 
stakeholders  signalled  in  the  public  consultation  that  existing  governance  structures  should 
remain in place. Four options have been examined: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

No further EU action to enhance cooperation between countries and regions. 

No  additional  structure:  The  change  compared  with  the  current  situation  would  be 
that  a  strategy  and  action  plan  would  be  established,  but  within  the  context  of 
existing structures. 

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  sufficiently  cross-sectoral  and  includes 
all  relevant  MS  at  the  government  level  is  the  Council  of  the  Baltic  Sea  States 
(CBSS). 

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 

EN 

3 

   EN 

in the General Affairs Council, while co-ordination, monitoring and reporting are the 
responsibility of the Commission. 

The  following  table  summarises  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  each  option  based  on 
their ability to deliver the specific objectives which were identified. 

Table 1. Evaluation of governance options’ effectiveness 

Governance 
challenge 

No additional structure 

Reliance on existing institution 

Community approach 

Governance option 

MS to implement Strategy 
& Action Plan 

Existing 
Strategy & Action Plan 

IGO 

to 

implement 

General Affairs Council (policy); 
Commission  (co-ordination  and 
monitoring) 

Specific objective 1: strengthened institutional capability to ensure implementation of actions 

Weak, consensual 
decision-making 

Lack of capability 
to enforce 
implementation 

No improvement 

Non-EU membership weakens 
decision-making 

No improvement 

No improvement, IGOs do not 
have enforcement capability 

Lack of capability 
to implement 
decisions 
Specific objective 2: improved coordination and coherence 

Can implement, but no 
improvement in 
coordination 

Not improved, CBSS does not 
have implementing capacity 

Improved through legitimate 
high level decision-making 
mechanism 

Peer pressure only enforcement 
mechanism, progress measured 
against adopted action plan 

High level participation increases 
likelihood of implementation 

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 

Fragmentation of 
policies 

No mandate to take 
decisions with 
significant impacts 
outside narrow 
focus of 
organization 

Unclear 
responsibilities 

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 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 

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 

Low level of 
visibility 

Improved through 
existence of strategy 

Improved through existence of 
strategy 

Improved: Member States are 
responsible, however, peer 
pressure only enforcement 
mechanism, progress measured 
against adopted action plan 
Improved through existence of 
strategy and higher political level 

Analysis  suggests  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  a  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  the  Community  level  and  the  level  of  the  BSR,  as  the  General  Affairs  Council  has  the 
advantage  of  being  able  to  discuss  both  issues  related  to  the  BSR  and  Community  issues. 
Therefore  this  approach  would  be  the  only  one  which  is  able  to  fully  address  issues  (e.g. 
agriculture and fisheries) where there is significant Community competence in an integrated 
manner while maintaining coherence with EU policies. This option would also ensure close 

EN 

4 

   EN 

coordination  with  the  Northern  Dimension,  and would not require  prior  coordination on the 
EU position outside the strategy as in the other options.  

The additional resources required will depend on the ambition of the strategy. At a first level, 
the strategy will require a capacity to involve stakeholders in the delivery of the strategy. At a 
second  level,  it  will  require  a  small  secretariat  capable  of  producing  annual  reports  on  the 
basis of a meta-monitoring and managing high level working groups to prepare assessments 
of  progress.  This  would  only  be  possible  by  using  an  existing  BSR  institution  or  in  a 
community approach. At a third level, a more developed secretariat would be able to maintain 
contact  with  EU  institutions  to  ensure  an  integrated  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 community approach.  

Overall it is expected that benefits will accrue from 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  contribute  towards  the 
general objective. An increase in overall efficiency is expected through increased coherence, 
addressing  fragmentation  and  duplication  of  efforts.  In  general  it  is  expected  that  the 
administrative  costs  of  additional  coordination  will  be  small  compared  to  existing  levels  of 
administrative  activity.  No  additional  legislation  is  proposed,  no  additional  reporting 
requirement is put forward and no additional decision-making mechanism is introduced.  

In  its  implementation,  it  will  be  important  to  ensure  that  the  strategy  does  not  lead  to 
increased organisational complexity. In this respect, the involvement of the EU level through 
its institutions, and in particular the Council and the Commission can play an important role 
in  disciplining  and  structuring  the  implementation  of  the  action  plan,  to  ensure  consistency 
with Community policies and avoid fragmentation of initiatives. 

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 
adequacy  of  the  targets.  The  inclusion  of  a  sunset  clause  in  the  strategy  could  provide 
incentives for countries and stakeholders to implement and further develop it. 

EN 

5 

   EN