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 {COM(2009) 248 final} {SEC(2009) 703}
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) 702 

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 

{COM(2009) 248 final} 
{SEC(2009) 703} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 4 

Context and legal basis................................................................................................. 4 

Organisation of consultation ........................................................................................ 4 

1.2.1.  Organisation of process................................................................................................ 4 

1.2.2.  Key conclusions from stakeholder consultation .......................................................... 5 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

Scientific expertise ....................................................................................................... 5 

Internal consultation..................................................................................................... 6 

Impact Assessment Board ............................................................................................ 6 

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 integration and energy efficiency............................ 13 

2.1.3.2.  Internal and external transport links........................................................................... 14 

2.1.3.3.  Attractiveness for citizens 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 

2 

   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 definition 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. 

4. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

6. 

7. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 24 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 26 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 28 

Impacts of governance objectives .............................................................................. 28 

Impact on administrative costs................................................................................... 29 

Economic, environmental and social impacts of implementation ............................. 31 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 31 

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 

3 

   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, 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 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  stakeholders  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  and  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, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden and 
non-Member States Belarus and Russia. 

(2) 

Stakeholder  meetings:  A  series  of  individual  meetings  were  organised  between  the 
Commission and stakeholders (Member States, Regional and Local Authorities of MS, 
NGOs  and  Inter-Governmental  Bodies,  private  sector)  and  experts  (NORDREGIO, 
VASAB, HELCOM, and European Environmental Agency). A series of 6 main events 
(open  to  representatives  of  Member  States,  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  February  2009  respectively  and  4  thematic 
conferences (also involving experts) between September and December 2008.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

(3) 

Public  consultation:  A  public  consultation  on  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region was launched on the website of DG REGIO.1 The period of consultation was 
03.11.2008-31.12.2008.  In  the  framework  of  the  consultation  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  challenges,  how  to  increase  cooperation  among 
actors, and what can be considered as the priority actions. 

1.2.2.  Key conclusions from stakeholder consultation 

–  In  total  109  authorities,  institutions  or  individuals  responded  to  the  consultation  and 
presented their views, including the 8 Member  States in the BSR , 3 non Member States 
(Russia, Belarus, Norway), 31 Regional and Local Authorities, 48 Inter-Governmental and 
Non-Governmental Bodies, 19 representatives from the private sector out of which 2 were 
experts / researchers and 3 individuals. The following views were expressed: 

–  The expectations of the Member States and stakeholders are very high. 

–  There was 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 existing Inter-Governmental and Non-Governmental Bodies do not have the 
authority needed to ensure actions are implemented in practice. 

–  There is a general view that no new institution should be created at the level of the BSR, 
but that the experience and capacity of existing ones should be exploited as far as possible. 

–  Some  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  decisions  taken  at  the  level  of  the  BSR  should  be 

binding and that instruments to ensure 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  existing  EU  funds  or  from  other  sources 
(regions, International Financial Institutions, NGOs). 

–  There is an overall agreement on four main objectives for the region: to make the BSR an 
environmentally sustainable place; to make the BSR a prosperous 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 experts2 in the fields of the specific challenges faced by the 
BSR (governance, environment, transport, energy, relations with Russia, competitiveness and 
growth,  crime  and  security,  demography)  to  provide  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 Impact 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 
2 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/baltic/consultation_en.htm 
Daniel Tarshys, Wiktor Szydarowski, Hallgeir Aalbu, Johannes Klein, Philipp Schmidt-Thome, Tomas 
Hanell, Erik Terk, Klaus Spiekermann, Roberts Kilis. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
1.4. 

Internal consultation 

A working group of 20 DGs was set up to discuss the EUSBSR in summer 2008 and has met 
regularly  since.  The  following  DGs  were  consulted:  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 was also consulted on a 
bilateral basis in its field of competence and was invited to provide text input to the EUSBSR. 
The  Commission  services  also  provided  information  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 submitted to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 
16  February  2009.  The  IAB  hearing  took  place  on  4  March  2009,  and  comments  from  the 
IAB  followed  on  9  March  2009,  where  the  IAB  requested  the  resubmission  of  the  IA.  To 
address  these  comments  a  number  of  modifications  were  undertaken.  In  the  problem 
description of each challenge a justification for 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  institutional  capacity  to  ensure  implementation  of 
action and to improve visibility and accountability. The ability of the governance options to 
address  the  governance  challenges  related  to  the  individual  themes  of  the  strategy 
(environment,  prosperity,  accessibility  and  attractiveness,  safety  and  security)  was  also 
evaluated. Costs of each governance option were described. The impact of the financial crisis 
was included  in the problem description. Following the second opinion  of the IAB  of the 2 
April 2009, the analysis of shortcomings of existing governance structures was strengthened, 
the role of third countries was further clarified, administrative costs were examined in greater 
detail and the monitoring and evaluation 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  addressed.  Socio-economic  analysis,  input  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 are 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 action 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 context of EU policies are deemed to be of strategic relevance to 
the BSR. For issues which are of common concern (e.g. countries are facing similar problems 

EN 

6 

   EN 

without  spillover  effects  such  as  an  ageing  population)  the  relevance  of  the  macroregion  is 
mainly limited to coordination and exchange of information regarding experience gained from 
policy  implementation.  Each  of  the  key  challenges  under  the  headings  of  four  main  themes 
(environment,  prosperity,  accessibility  and  attractiveness  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 Palette, the Baltic Sea States Sub-
regional Cooperation, the Baltic Development Forum, Euroregion Baltic, Union of the Baltic 
Cities, VASAB 2010, and Baltic Sea University Programme 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  Sea.  Eutrophication  is  an  increase  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 nutrient inputs (nitrogen and phosphorus) which mainly 
originate from inadequately treated sewage, agricultural run-off and airborne emissions from 
road and maritime traffic and combustion processes. Eutrophication leads to problems such as 
intensified planktonic blooms, increase of filamentous 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. Nitrogen should be reduced in order to reduce oxygen 
depletion,  the  amount  of  filamentous  algae  and  the  effects  on  the  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 the countries in 
the  catchment  area  are  concerned  and  no  country  or  region,  acting  alone,  can  solve  the 
problem.  

European  directives  (in  particular  the  Water  Framework  Directive)  exist  with  the  aim  of 
reducing nutrient input into waters. However, the 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 additional efforts taken at the BSR level are taken 
through  HELCOM.  In  this  organisation  countries  are  represented  by  their  Ministers  of 
Environment  and  HELCOM  does  not  have  the  mandate  to  implement  measures  or  enforce 
implementation.  

The  strategic  challenges  related  to  eutrophication  are  implementation  of  actions  already 
agreed to reduce nutrients and promoting measures and practices which reduce nutrient losses.  

2.1.1.2.  Marine biodiversity 

The  Baltic  Sea  ecosystem  is  unique  and  particularly  vulnerable  to  changes,  whether  in  its 
physical and chemical composition or in the balance of the food web. There are many threats 
to biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. One is the increasing arrival of non-native species (e.g. water 
flea and comb jellyfish) that compete with native species and sometimes cause changes to the 

EN 

7 

   EN 

whole  ecosystem.  Other  threats  are  contaminants  that  affect  growth,  reproduction  and 
resistance against diseases and stress in fish, 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  activities  (such  as  dredging,  construction  along 
shorelines,  numerous  obstacles  for  migratory  fish  in  waterways,  contaminants,  low  oxygen 
levels, etc.) also threaten the Baltic biodiversity. Fisheries directly impact on fish diversity in 
the  Baltic  Sea  and  have  led  to  declines  in  some  fish  stocks,  mainly  herring  in  the  Western 
Baltic, eel and cod. The main reason for this decline in stocks is the setting of too high total 
allowable catch and poor compliance, with significant amounts of misreported or unreported 
catches particularly in the Eastern cod fishery.  

The  policy  with  the  largest  impact  on  biodiversity  is  the  EU  Common  Fisheries  Policy,  a 
review  of  which  was  launched  in  2008.  Directives  adopted  with  implications  for  the 
biodiversity  of  the  Baltic  Sea  are  the  Marine  Strategy  Directive  and  Habitats  and  Birds 
Directives,  as  well  as  the  Biodiversity  Action  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  based  on  a  Commission  proposal,  which  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  currently 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 Commission, and is therefore subject 
to interests represented in the Council, where ministers of fishery participate. At the level of 
the BSR, institutionalized cooperation on fisheries, including representatives of all interested 
parties, with a free exchange of views is missing. 

The  BSR  institution  dealing  with  ensuring  the  sustainability  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  populations  of  all  commercially  exploited  fish  species  are 
within safe biological limits, reach Maximum Sustainable Yield, and are distributed through 
their natural range and contain full size/age range.  

HELCOM  suffers  from  a  weak  capacity  to  implement  and  enforce  measures.  The  fisheries 
sector is not represented within HELCOM at any 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 effects of fishing on the Baltic ecosystem. 

2.1.1.3.  Hazardous substances 

Hazardous  substances  are  a  risk  for  the  marine  environment.  They  include  organic 
contaminants  and  heavy  metals,  as  well  as  chemical  weapons  sunk  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  Once 
released  into  the  sea,  hazardous  substances  can  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 reproductive problems in animals, especially top 
predators.  Contaminants  may  be  hazardous  because  of  their  toxicity  (acute  and  chronic 
effects,  e.g.  hormone-disruption,  etc.),  persistence  and  bio-accumulating  properties.  For 

EN 

8 

   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  estimated  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  institution  dealing  with  hazardous  substances. 
However,  the  industrial  sector  is  not  represented  within  HELCOM  and  it  does  not  have  the 
mandate to implement measures, which are the responsibility 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  number  and  size  of  ships  have  been  growing  in 
recent  years  currently  representing  up  to  15%  of  the  world’s  cargo  traffic.  While  it  is 
considered a clean mode of transport, when measured 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' cities), 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, especially cruise liners and ferries. The discharge 
of waste water into the sea is allowed if there 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  general  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 such justifies action at the level of the BSR. 

Mandatory decisions regarding clean 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 prepared by HELCOM and agreed in November 2007 
by Member States foresees measures to promote clean shipping. The implementation of these 
measures  is  progressing,  but  suffers  from  the  limitations  of  HELCOM  already  mentioned 
under  previous  headings.  The  strategic  challenge  related  to  marine  pollution  from  ships  is 
implementation of actions already agreed under HELCOM. 

EN 

9 

   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 necessary. Generally adaptation measures do not have significant 
cross-border  spill-over  effects,  but  macro-regional  cooperation  is  judged  to  be  important  in 
some cases, such as in coastal areas in the context 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 strategic importance specific 
to  the  BSR,  stakeholders  have  signalled  the  potential  usefulness  of  increased  cooperation. 
Various  initiatives  exist  regarding  good  practice  on  adaptation  to  the  impacts  of  climate 
change  in  the  BSR,  but  this  has  been  largely  informal.  Cooperation  exists  in  the  field  of 
research,  but  there  is  no  framework  for  cooperation  in  adaptation  actions.  Adaptation  to 
climate  change  is  not  mainstreamed  into  macroregional  actions,  e.g.  investments  in 
infrastructure, which indicates a lack of coordinated and integrated approach 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  organizations  active  in  the  field  of  economy  (Higher  Education, 
Research,  Development  and  Innovation  systems,  Energy)  such  as  the  Baltic  Sea  University 
Programme, Council of the Baltic Sea States, Baltic 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  Cities,  TEKES,  VINNOVA,  Baltic  Sea  Energy 
Cooperation. 

It is essential in the context of the current financial crisis to ensure that new barriers are not 
created to the internal market and that attention continues to be focused on Lisbon priorities. 
The current crisis has heavily impacted on economies 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 collective action. However, actions linked to prosperity, 
accessibility  and  attractiveness  will  have  to  be  aligned  with  the  EU  Recovery  Package,  in 
particular in relation to investment 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 
4 

JRC IPTS http://peseta.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs/Agriculture.html 
JRC IPTS http://peseta.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs/Riverfloods.html 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
the exception of Germany, relatively 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  often  significant  differences  between  Member 
States  in  the  implementation  of  Internal  Market  Directives  which  results  in  unforeseen 
problems when exporting companies encounter divergent interpretations of rules on different 
sides of the border. 

There  are  also  administrative  and  non-tariff  barriers  to  trade  and  cross-border  movement  of 
goods  between  the  EU  and  Russia,  requiring  improvement  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 fraud and evasion in the area of 
taxation have also been identified as areas for improvement. 

Currently an ad-hoc group, the “Nordic-Baltic cooperation group” for the Services Directive 
coordinates work at expert level between Member 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,  similar  groups  for  goods  and  capital  do  not  exist. 
Existing  governance  structures  therefore  do  not  cover  the  full  range  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 internal market and trade with neighbouring countries 
specific to the Baltic Sea are the removal of remaining hindrances to trade and maintenance of 
internal  market  principles  (essential  in  current  crisis  situation)  by  voluntary  agreement  on 
transposition  and  implementation  of  the  Internal  Market  Directives,  and  implementation  of 
the EU-Russia strategy aimed at sustainable improvement and facilitation of customs controls 
and  coordination  with  actions  taken  by  the  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. The 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, employment in the high tech sector, 
and  show  a  general  weakness  in  capitalising  on  high  levels  of  population  with  tertiary 
education. Spending on R&D is particularly 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 capitalize 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. Addressing the problem of capitalizing research and 
innovation points towards the need for increased entrepreneurship in the E-BSR.  

Innovation  is  largely  a  matter  for  national  policy.  However,  there  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.  Although  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 cooperation in the region. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

There are already significant efforts 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,  JOSEFIN  (Joint  SME  Finance  for  Innovation),  BSR 
CBP (Capacity Building Programme on Trans-National Cluster and Innovation Systems in the 
Baltic  Sea  Region),  BaSIC  (Baltic  Sea  Innovation  Network  Centres),  SPIN  (Sustainable 
Production  through  Innovation  in  Small  and  Medium  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 the region to co-operate on innovation, they also 
show how fragmented the co-operation is presently. There are no initiatives with a mandate to 
implement policies based on the results of the studies 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 Nordic countries and Germany and 
the  three  Baltic  States  and  Poland  in  a  strategic  way.  There  is  a  need  to  align  funding  of 
research activities along the lines of a common strategy. Current governance structures do not 
enable collaborative research to be implemented and encourage geographic fragmentation of 
effort at the strategic Baltic Sea level. 

There are no organizations responsible for coordination of innovation policy at the level of the 
BSR.  The  large  number  of  project  level  initiatives  in  the  region,  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 conducive to economic integration of this area. More and closer integration as 
well  as  better  conditions  for  entrepreneurs  to  trade  and  do  business  with  their  neighbouring 
countries  are  needed.  It  is  important  to  increase  cooperation  in  areas  where  the  region  is 
strong and has potential for further growth such 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 significantly lagging behind W-BSR countries. In addition, 
the  standard  of  universities  in  the  E-BSR  is  often  low  when  compared  internationally.  In 
contrast, the level of tertiary education in the W-BSR is high, but these countries are facing a 
shortage of appropriate vocational skills. Although Nordic Universities are of high quality in 
general,  there  is  significant  scope  for  increasing  critical  mass  through  cooperation  between 
universities. 

The  BSR  faces  a  common  problem  related  to  demographic  change  and  migration.  Some 
regions face severe population decline, in particular in Northern Finland and Sweden due to 
migration  from  already  extremely  sparsely  populated  rural  areas  to  urban  areas,  with  the 
largest  decline  affecting  the  young  population  and  migration  from  the  E-BSR  to  other 
countries  is  also  a  significant  issue.  Migration  between  E-BSR  and  W-BSR  is  of 
macroregional  significance.  There  is  a  significant  potential  for  matching  up  between  labour 
markets and education, increasing competition and efficiency in the labour market. It is also, 
however,  causing  a  (perhaps  temporary)  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 

12 

   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 decisions on education matching programs and so on 
are also made without consideration to the labour market situation 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  entrepreneurship,  SMEs  and  human  resources  specific  to 
the  BSR  are  the  development  of  cooperation  related  to  labour  mobility,  trade,  foreign 
investments, and design. 

2.1.2.4.  Agriculture, fishing and forestry 

In  the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  farming,  forestry,  and  fishing  are  important  to  the  economy  and 
sustainable development. Keeping these sectors profitable and competitive is a key factor in 
securing the future sustainable development of the region.  

The forestry sector is important as an economic base for regional development 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 subject 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  rapid  technical  development  on  vessels  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.  Consequently  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 agriculture and forestry. 

Cooperation  at  the  macro-regional  level  in  forestry  issues  is  currently  weak.  However, 
stakeholders have shown an interest in developing cooperation in this sector. There is also a 
low level of cooperation in issues concerning the agricultural sector, 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 current governance structures do not 
allow sufficient scope for coordination 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 transport, communication and tourism include the Council of the 
Baltic  Sea  States,  Baltic  21,  Baltic  Sea  States  Sub-regional  Cooperation,  the  Baltic 
Development Forum and the Baltic Sea Tourism Commission. 

2.1.3.1.  Energy security, energy market integration and energy efficiency 

Energy markets (electricity, gas, fuel, etc) in the BSR are nationally oriented instead of being 
linked  and  coordinated  within  the  region  since  cross-border  infrastructure  is  often  lacking. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

BASREC5 provides member countries with a forum to build up a regional view of the energy 
policy  strategies.  However,  the  three  Baltic  States  (Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania),  with  the 
exception of a power cable Estlink between Finland and Estonia, are not integrated into the 
wider energy networks of the region and to the rest of  the European Union. These Member 
States  are  hence  practically  isolated  in  the  field  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 energy 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 this plan in its conclusions of 16th 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 cooperation 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 provide sufficient scope for coordination within the sector at the 
level of implementation, resulting in non-alignment 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 external 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 great 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 strongly on foreign trade in goods and needs well 
functioning  transport  infrastructure  for  its  economic  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  road  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  region.  In  the  context  of  integration  of  regions  at  a  macro-
regional level, high speed rail networks between 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 macroregional 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 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
of intermodal exchanges, lack of rail interoperability, and slow progress on railway projects 
such as the Rail Baltica. Shifts in transport modes in both passenger and 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 markets 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 internal market as well as economic and social cohesion in the EU through 
realising  a  number  of  strategic  priority  projects.  The  Northern  Dimension  Partnership  on 
Transport  and  Logistics,  currently  under  preparation  and  operational  from  the  beginning  of 
2010,  will  be  a  new  regional  cooperation  forum,  combining  both  the  transport  and  logistics 
policies and coordinating infrastructure projects. The TENs are coordinated 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  are  therefore  the  low  level  of  coordination  of 
national transport policies 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 outside the BSR. The leakage of 
skills could be reduced by encouraging greater mobility within the region. The wide variation 
in sickness and accident rates across the region indicate opportunities for cooperative actions 
to bring real improvements in quality of life. 

Large areas of considerable natural beauty are also found in the BSR with tourism providing a 
great  opportunity  to  support  regional  development.  However,  given  the  small  size  of  many 
countries, tourism lacks critical mass and identity as a location. 

There  is  currently  little  cooperation  within  the  BSR  on  issues  related  to  tourism.  However, 
stakeholders in the BSR feel that increased cooperation and combined marketing of the region 
can increase the critical mass of the region as a tourist destination and attract more tourists. 
They  have  also  signalled  the  importance  of  coordination  actions  such  as  increasing  student 
exchange and an environmentally friendly 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  matters),  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 

15 

   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,  cocaine  and  hashish.  The  BSR  presents  attractive 
opportunities  to  organised  crime  from  the  EU  but  also  to  groups  originating  from  the 
neighbouring countries such as Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. 

An  important  feature  of  the  region  is  the  existence  of  borders  between  the  EU  and  Russia. 
This border separates two very different types of legislation, including differences in excise 
policies,  and  makes  cross  border  law  enforcement  cooperation  sometimes  lengthy  and 
cumbersome.  Therefore  the  border  can  also  be  seen  to  facilitate  certain  organised  crime 
groups and markets. A further facilitator for trade fraud in this region is the large volume of 
transport across the borders and other vulnerabilities in the logistics sector. 

Cooperation  is  developed  in  the  BSR  on  the  basis  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  Border  Control 
Cooperation.  Joint  Police  Stations  and  Police  and  Customs  Cooperation  Centres  have  only 
been set up at the border 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  enforcement  matters  without  sufficient 
integration  of  functions  and  tasks,  e.g.  between  the  Baltic  Sea  Task  Force  on  Organised 
Crime,  Baltic  Sea  Region  Border  Control  Cooperation,  CBSS  bodies,  HELCOM,  Frontex, 
Europol,  and  Eurojust.  Cooperation  between  certain  sectoral  law  enforcement  authorities  in 
the BSR is relatively well advanced, while others 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  information  and  experience,  since  this  is  not  fully 
developed. 

The strategic challenges specific to the BSR are related to the operational cooperation of law 
enforcement  authorities  (customs,  police,  border  guard)  in  the  fight  against  cross  border 
crime. 

2.1.4.2.  Maritime safety 

Due  to  its  strategic  position,  the  BSR  is  a  natural  route  for  oil  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 expected to continue to be significant 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 legal system ensures their enforcement across the 
entire European Union. The Baltic Sea was designated in 2005 as a particularly sensitive sea 
area (PSSA). Specific measures can be used to control the maritime activities in the area, such 
as  routing  measures,  installation  of  Vessel  Traffic  Services  (VTS),  and  the  introduction  of 
Mandatory Reporting Systems (MRS). Many regional initiatives at Member State level relate 

EN 

16 

   EN 

to  Automatic  Identification  System  (AIS)  data  sharing  systems,  e.g. 
Commission's AIS network and the Gulf of Finland Reporting System (GOFREP). 

the  Helsinki 

For  marine  pollution  a  Community  information  system  exists  to  exchange  data  between  the 
Member  States  on  intervention  capacity  and  measures  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, ascertaining 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 different sub-sets of maritime traffic according to 
their needs. In addition to technological fragmentation, the administrative structure of national 
authorities  dealing  with  surveillance  is  varied  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 Germany, appear to have more complex structures. 
Cross border cooperation relating to surveillance also appears not to be carried out at the same 
level in all sectors of offshore activities (customs, border control, pollution response, 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 fragmentation of effort. 

The  strategic  challenges  in  the  BSR  related  to  maritime  safety  are  the  fragmentation  of 
surveillance tools and technological standards for the maritime transport of energy products.  

2.1.4.3.  Major emergencies on sea and on land 

Transport  by  sea  is  expected  to  increase  dramatically  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 Safety, with cross border effects can result from 
natural and man-made disasters, acts of terrorism including chemical, biological, radiological 
and  nuclear  terrorism,  and  technological,  radiological  or  environmental  accidents  as  well  as 
health threats from communicable 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 northern 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 expected 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  contingency  planning  which  can  still  be  further 
developed.  While  work  has  been  done  at  mobilising  assistance  in  response  to  disasters 
through  the  Community  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  and  additional  support  is  available 
through the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA), 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 

17 

   EN 

2.2. 

Existing governance structures 

There are a large number of regional organizations in the Baltic Sea Region with the aim of 
making macro-regional collective action possible, covering either the entire region or parts of 
the  region,  focusing  on  different  themes  and  activities.  Among  the  existing  structures  some 
are concerned with a wide range of activities, others are focused on a narrow set of objectives.  

In this section a brief introduction is provided to regional 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  structures  with  a  wide  thematic  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  Nordic Council of  Ministers (NCM), whose  members 
are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 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  research,  business,  energy  and  regional  policy,  and 
neighbourhood  cooperation,  with  an  additional  focus  on  equality,  legal  cooperation,  labour, 
social  and  health  policy,  economic  and  financial  policy,  environment,  use  of  resources 
(fishery,  landuse,  food,  forestry)  and  removing  border  obstacles.  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 are 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 Foreign 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 activities 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  governments  of  Estonia,  Latvia  and  Lithuania.  It  was  formally 
established in its present structure in 1994.  It is complemented by the Baltic Assembly (BA) 
which promotes cooperation between the parliaments of the Estonia, 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, Norway, Sweden, European Commission, 
Russia)  focuses  on  culture,  indigenous  people,  health,  education,  research,  environment, 
nuclear  safety,  industrial  and  economic  development,  energy  and  transport.  The  Arctic 
Council (AC) (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, USA, Canada, Russia) focuses 
transport.
on 

environment 

indigenous 

people, 

health, 

and 

EN 

18 

   EN 

Table 1. Thematic overlaps between the four council formations in the North 

Democracy and human rights 
Culture 
Indigenous people 
Health 
Education and research 
Environment  
Nuclear safety  
Industrial and economic development  
Energy  
Transport  

NC 

CBSS 
x 

BEAC 

AC 

x 

x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

x 

x 
x 

x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 

x 
x 

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  Council  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, notably the EBRD, EIB, NIB and IBRD. The ND 
focuses on economic cooperation, including promotion of trade, investments, customs, SMEs, 
business,  innovation,  well-functioning  labour  markets,  financial  services,  infrastructure, 
energy,  agriculture,  forestry,  transport  and  logistics,  telecommunications  and  information 
technology, freedom, security and justice, external 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  organizations  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 focuses 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 for the organization is its annual conference. 
It  has  a  board  consisting  of  two  representatives  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 well as a rapporteur on eutrophication. It has an 
annual conference, with a standing committee between annual conferences. The members of 
the standing committee are appointed from the Nordic Council, Germany, Russia, Poland, the 
country hosting the conference, Baltic Assembly, 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 Commission 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 and education, as well as spatial planning.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2.  Assessment of macro-regional structures 

Inefficiencies in the existing general and thematic governance structures described above stem 
from  two  main  sets  of  problems.  Firstly  there  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 benefits across the region, but reflect the lowest 
common denominator. 

•  Lack of capability/no mandate to enforce implementation of decisions by Member States, 

lack of capability to sanction non-compliance. 

•  Lack of capability to implement decisions. Many have an institutional structure which does 
not  include  a  permanent  secretariat,  or  necessitates  approval  of  funding  on  a  project  by 
project  basis,  often  based  on  voluntary  contributions.  Therefore  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 different organizations simultaneously 
which results in unnecessary efforts to gather and analyse information, identify problems 
and find solutions. 

•  Fragmentation  of  policies  and  objectives:  There  are  many  inter-linkages  within  and 
between different objectives (within e.g. transport policy between rail and road transport, 
or  between  policies  e.g.  transport  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  organizations  and  the  fact  that  optimal  trade-offs  between 
different objectives cannot be made.  

•  No  mandate  to  take  decisions  with  significant  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 responsible for achieving results, the 

responsibility for failure to make progress on an issue is not evident. 

There  is  reason  in  some  cases  for  the  overlaps  identified,  because  firstly  different 
organizations have different geographic coverage, and thus there is a rationale for coverage of 
similar themes, and secondly in certain cases headlines 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  which  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 eutrophication or stocks 

EN 

20 

   EN 

of  natural  resources.  Annex  4  summarises  the  linkages  between  sectoral  actions  and  the 
potential trade-offs between different sectoral objectives such as  transport  and  environment, 
or  increased  economic  integration  and  management  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  Region  is  the  capacity  to  develop  an  integrated 
approach to solving cross-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 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.  

For  each  of  the  main  themes,  there  are  challenges  that  cannot  be  sufficiently  addressed 
through Member State action alone. EU policies provide the main framework through which 
these  challenges  can  be  addressed.  However,  in  a  number  of  areas,  countries  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 themselves 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. 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  and  attractiveness 
for  citizens  and  tourists.  In  the  case  of  energy  and  transport  networks,  while  there  are 

EN 

21 

   EN 

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. 

•  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  responsible  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 are not necessarily seen as a priority for 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  problem  in  the  region  is  not  a  lack  of  existing 
initiatives or governance structures. It is rather the failure of the largely 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  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. 

2.3.2.  The case for action at EU level 

Most of the challenges identified above fall within the scope of EU policies. These policies 
are  almost  all  shared  competencies.  When  the  treaties  confer  on  the  Union  a  competence 
shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and Member States may legislate 
and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence 
to the extent that the Union has not exercised its competence. 

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. 
However,  in  order  to  ensure  compatibility  and  complementarity  with  EU  policies  the 
following table summarises the link between challenges, 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.  (Article  174  EC  Treaty)  Prosperity,  accessibility  and 
attractiveness: Promoting a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance 
(Article 2 EC Treaty); Strengthening economic and social cohesion. Under the EC Treaty (Article 158), 
this  is  to  be  achieved  through  reducing  disparities  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  Articles  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 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
Table 2. Case for intervention to address identified priority challenges 

Challenge 

Case for public intervention 

Policy Area  Competence7 

Eutrophication 

Market  failure  (common  pool 
resource), 
Environmental 
legislation 
Marine biodiversity  Market  failure  (tragedy  of  the 

commons), CFP 

Environment 
Agriculture 

Shared 
Shared 

Scope  for  Action 
at Baltic Sea Level 
Strategic 

Environment 
Conservation 
of  Marine 
Resources 
Fisheries 
Environment 

Shared 
Community 

Strategic 

Shared 

Shared 

Strategic 

Environment 

Shared 

Strategic 

Environment 
Energy 

Shared 
Shared 

Cooperation 

Internal 
market 

Shared 

Strategic 

Industry 

Member State 

Strategic 

Industry 

Member State 

Strategic 

Agriculture 

Shared 

Strategic 

Energy 

Shared 

Strategic 

TENS 

Shared 

Strategic 

Tourism 

Member State  Cooperative 

Market  failure  (tragedy  of  the 
Hazardous 
commons) 
substances 
Pollution from ships  Market  failure  (common  pool 
resource) 
Market  failure  (public  good), 
legislation, 
Environmental 
international commitments 
EU treaty objective 

Climate change  

Internal  market  and 
trade 
with 
neighbouring 
countries 
Innovation 

human 

Entrepreneurship, 
SMEs, 
resources 
Agriculture, 
fisheries, forestry 

Energy 
energy 
integration 
energy efficiency 

security, 
market 
and 

Internal  and  external 
transport links 
Attractiveness 
citizens and tourists 
Cross border crime 

for 

Maritime  safety  and 
security 

failure 

Market 
(knowledge 
spillover  positive  externality), 
EU objective (Lisbon) 
EU objective (Lisbon) 

failure 

Sustainability  of  sectors  has  a 
public 
good 
good/common 
aspect 
Energy  security  public  good, 
(absence  of 
Market 
competitive  market)  if  energy 
markets  not 
integrated,  EU 
objective (internal market) 
Market  failure,  EU  objective 
(internal market) 
Economies of scale 

Safety  and security  public  good, 
regulatory 
failure, 
Customs/security policy 
Safety  and security  public  good, 
regulatory failure 

Justice 
Home 
Affairs 
Maritime 
Affairs 

and 

Shared 

Strategic 

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  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy  (TEU,  Article  11); 
Safeguarding  the  security  of  citizens,  or  citizens’  rights  recognised  by  the  Treaty.  This  includes 
preventing and combating crime and terrorism (TEU, Article 29) 
As stated in the draft Treaty of Lisbon 

23 

   EN 

7 

EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Challenge 

Case for public intervention 

Policy Area  Competence8 

Major  emergencies 
at sea and on land 

Safety and security public good 

Civil 
Protection 
Environment 

Member State 

Shared 

Scope  for  Action 
at Baltic Sea Level 
Strategic 

The  need  to  improve  governance  in  areas  where  the  EU  has  significant  competences  (e.g. 
fisheries  and  agriculture  and  the  internal  market)  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  adequate  involvement  of 
institutions  at  the  EU  level  is  important  in  ensuring  policy  integration  and  coherence  with 
community policies. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

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 environmental 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 there is need for further action, and whether the 
issue is of macro-regional relevance.  

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: clarification of existing overlaps and definition of 
roles,  an  integrated  approach  which  takes  into  consideration  interactions  between 
objectives, improved coordination of spending priorities; 

•  strengthened  institutional  capability  to  ensure  implementation  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 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
compliance  in  an  international  context  are  few,  and  are  limited  mainly  to  peer  pressure, 
therefore improvements in this respect can only be marginal). 

The  following  table  summarises  the  relationship  between  the  individual  challenges,  the 
governance objectives and the proposed strategic actions. 

Table 3. Summary of governance objectives and actions for identified priority challenges 

Further activities 

Governance objectives 

Strategic actions 

Challenge 
I. Environment 
Eutrophication 

Marine biodiversity 

Action 
agreed 
HELCOM 

already 
in 

upon 

Action 
agreed 
HELCOM 

already 
in 

upon 

Hazardous substances  For  most  but  not  all 
relevant  hazardous 
substances 
action 
already  agreed  upon 
in HELCOM 

Pollution from ships 

Action 
agreed 
HELCOM 

already 
in 

upon 

Climate change 

II. Prosperity 
Internal  market  and 
trade 
with 
neighbouring 
countries 

Existing 
policy 
target,  new  actions 
required 

Coordinated 
implementation 
EU Directive 

of 

to 

trade-offs 

institutional 
enforce  or 

Address 
weakness 
implement 
Address  lack  of  capacity  to 
make 
between 
environmental  and  economic 
issues 
Address  lack  of  capacity  to 
make 
between 
environmental  and  economic 
issues  
Address 
weakness 
implement 
considerations 

institutional 
enforce  or 
environmental 

trade-offs 

to 

to 

trade-offs 

institutional 
enforce  or 

Address 
weakness 
implement 
Address  lack  of  capacity  to 
between 
make 
environmental  and  economic 
issues 
Address 
weakness 
implement 
Address  lack  of  capacity  to 
make 
between 
environmental  and  economic 
issues 
Address  lack  of  coordination 
between sectors 
Address 
low 
coordination 

institutional 
enforce  or 

trade-offs 

level 

of 

to 

Address  lack  of  coordination 
on 
of 
implementation 

issues 

some 

Implement  actions  already  agreed 
to reduce nutrients 
Promote  measures  and  practices 
which  reduce  nutrient  losses  and 
thereby  address  eutrophication 
when 
the  Common 
Agricultural Policy 
Implement  the  HELCOM  Baltic 
Sea Action Plan 
Reduce  the  effects  of  fishing  on 
the Baltic ecosystem 

reviewing 

Implement  actions  already  agreed 
to reduce hazardous substances 

Implement  actions  already  agreed 
to reduce ship pollution 

none 

improvement 

Implement  the  strategy  aimed  at 
and 
sustainable 
the 
facilitation  of  controls  at 
border 
Coordinate  with  actions  taken  by 
the  CBSS  Working  Group  on 
Customs  Cooperation  and  Border 
Crossing Aspects (WGCB) 
Removal  of  remaining  hindrances 
to 
the 
trade  and  defence  of 
Internal  Market  principles  by 
voluntary 
on 
transposition  and  implementation 

agreement 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
Challenge 

Further activities 

Governance objectives 

cooperation 

and 
Address 
coordination 
among 
organizations  at  the  policy 
level 
Address  lack  of  capacity  to 
implement  
Address  lack  of  coordination 
at policy level between MS in 
particular in labour market 

Address  lack  of  coordination 
between  sectoral  policies  in 
particular  for  agriculture  and 
fisheries 

limited  scope  of 

Address  lack  of  coordination 
at  implementation  level  of 
TENs 
Address 
existing initiatives 
Address  lack  of  coordination 
at policy level 
Address  lack  of  coordination 
at implementation level 
Address 
existing initiatives 

limited  scope  of 

a 

Strategic actions 
of the Internal Market Directives 
Establish 
innovation strategy 
Exploit  opportunities  created  by 
the 
in 
performance 

common  BSR 

disparities 

current 

Increase labour mobility 
Promote  trade  and  attract  more 
investments  into  the  Baltic  Sea 
Region 
Make  the  Baltic  Sea  region  a 
leader in design 
Reduce discards 
Improve  control  and  stop  illegal 
fishing 

Establish  an  integrated  and  well 
functioning  internal  market  for 
energy 

Coordinate 
policies 
investments 

national 

transport 
infrastructure 

and 

Address  lack  of  coordination 
between MS 

none 

Address  lack  of  coordination 
between 
and 
within 
authorities 
different 
in 
sectors; 
Address 
existing initiatives 
Address 
between 
fragmentation of effort 

coordination 
and 

limited  scope  of 

sectors 

Address  lack  of  cooperation 
in some areas 

Establish  joint  customs,  border, 
for 
police 
and 
operational matters 

procedures 

apply 

the  fleet 

surveillance 

Commonly 
tools 
Ensuring 
energy  products 
highest technological standards 
Implement  the  work  programme 
of the HELCOM Response group 

transporting 
the 
to 

is  up 

Innovation  

Some 
action, 
coordination 
incentives 

lack 

existing 
of 
on 

Entrepreneurship, 
SMEs, 
resources 

human 

Coordinated 
implementation 
of 
actions  signalled  as 
important 
by 
stakeholders 

Agriculture,  fisheries, 
forestry 

Action 
agreed 
HELCOM 

already 
in 

upon 

III. Accessibility and attractiveness 
security, 
Energy 
energy 
market 
integration and energy 
efficiency  

Existing 
activities, 
some  new  activities 
needed  which  are 
not 
planned 
implemented 

but 

Internal  and  external 
transport links 

Existing 
activities, 
some  new  activities 
needed  which  are 
planned 
not 
implemented 

but 

for 

Attractiveness 
citizens and tourists 
IV. Safety and Security 
Cross-border crime 

Enhanced 
cooperation 
procedures 
operational matters 

on 
for 

Maritime safety 

Enhancement 
existing activities 

of 

Major  emergencies  at 
sea and on land 

Implementation 
of 
existing  HELCOM 
programme 
work 
enhance 
and 
cooperation 
procedures. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

The  challenges  identified  above  point  towards  the  need  for  increased  coordination  and 
cooperation  between  different  sectors  and  between  Member  States,  as  well  as  the  need  for 
enhanced capacity to implement or enforce. The identification of strategic challenges for the 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
 
region can be considered as a first step. As a second step a suitable governance structure has 
to be identified to ensure that appropriate collective action is undertaken. 

The need for links between the European Union 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  consultation  that  existing  governance  structures  should 
remain in place. This was considered as necessary for political feasibility, therefore all options 
which would interfere significantly with current governance 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) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

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 current situation 
and  cooperation  with  third  countries  would  remain  within  the  existing  framework, 
notably but not exclusively the Northern Dimension. 

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. This would imply that Member States and third countries would continue to 
work together as in the current situation, and based on an integrated strategy, but with 
no overall monitoring or review mechanisms in place. 

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). 
Cooperation  with  third  countries  would  be  sought  through  already  existing 
frameworks. 

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-ordination, monitoring and reporting are the 
responsibility of the Commission. Given the territorial 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 stakeholders, while maintaining close links 
with the governments most closely involved, for example through high-level working 
groups.  Cooperation  with  third  countries  would  be  sought  through  already  existing 
frameworks,  in  particular  through  the  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 

27 

   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 after 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 Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC). The 
EGTC  is  a  legal  entity  and  as  such,  enables  regional  and  local  authorities  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  funding 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. 

ANALYSIS 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 efficient, effective and coherent way. The analysis of 
impacts  is  therefore  twofold:  analysing  the  effectiveness  of  governance  structures  in 
delivering results including administrative costs and analysing the impacts of actions aiming 
at  addressing  the  priority  challenges  identified  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 disparities more acute, accentuating challenges 
linked to prosperity. Constraints 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 duplication of effort, fragmentation of policies and 
objectives, lack of mandate to take decisions outside the narrow scope of the organization, 
unclear responsibilities, and inefficiencies resulting from these weaknesses. By clarifying 
existing overlaps and defining roles, delivery organisations in the region could concentrate 
on  the  achievement  of  objectives  and  use  resources  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  win-win  situations,  as  well  as 
synergies in policy delivery. Improved coordination of spending priorities and in particular 
of  EU  funds  both  thematically  (between  policies  active  in  the  same  field  such  as 

EN 

28 

   EN 

environment  and  energy)  and  geographically 
interconnections). 

(such  as 

transport  and  energy 

•  Institutional  capability  to  ensure  implementation  of  actions:  This  would  strengthen 
weak  intergovernmental  decision-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  level  that  are  necessary  to  ensure  effective  implementation. 
This is particularly important for initiatives which depend on action in several policy fields 
where different sectoral stakeholders are involved, or alternatively where there are strongly 
differing priorities across the region. 

•  Improved  visibility  and  accountability  of  actions  This  would  further  strengthen 
enforcement  and  implementation  of  decisions.  Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  results 
improves  compliance,  effectiveness  and  lesson-learning.  The  current  fragmentation  of 
arrangements undermines  such  processes. An external body such as the Commission  can 
potentially  play  an  important  role  as  an  independent  actor  in  such  a  process.  Improved 
visibility  and  accountability  can  encourage  ownership  and  create  consensus  for  common 
action  particularly  through  peer  pressure.  A  process  of  monitoring  and  follow-up  allows 
actions to be adjusted to improve both efficiency and effectiveness. 

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. 

5.2. 

Impact on administrative costs 

In general it is expected that the administrative costs of additional coordination will be small 
compared to existing levels of administrative activity. Improved coordination and coherence 
will require a combination of contacts at working and political level to discuss more efficient 
use of resources and the development of common approaches both within and across sectors. 
Improved 
the  development  of  decision-making 
involve 
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.  

institutional  capability  will 

The additional resources required 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 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.  The  following  table  summarises  the  potential 
administrative tasks under each option. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

No further EU 
action 

No additional 
structure 

Using an 
existing 
institution 

Community 
approach 

Facilitate Stakeholder Involvement 

Yes 

Undertake  meta-monitoring  and 
annual reporting 

Organise high level working groups 

Maintain  coherent  and  integrated 
approach to EU policies 

Prepare annual council meeting 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

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 stakeholders. This is therefore 
without  administrative  impact  on  the  Commission  and  the  Council.  However,  Member 
States will find themselves obliged to use existing 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, responsibility 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  organization  and  placing  it  in  a  coordinating  role,  all  costs  of 
coordination  and  monitoring  would  be  borne  by  an  existing  institution.  Costs  would  be 
incurred by the existing institution from carrying 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, managing high level working groups, producing 
annual  reports  on  meta-monitoring,  maintaining  an  integrated  approach  through  internal 
coordination  of  Commission  services,  and  facilitating  stakeholder  meetings  will  imply 
some burden on the Commission. 

The  effective  implementation  of  the  final  option  would  require  working  groups  of  senior 
officials from the region, meeting 4 times annually and an annual stakeholder meeting. There 
would be no additional reporting requirement within the region 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  synthesis  report  together  with 
input from the relevant services of the Commission. It has been estimated that 4 full-time staff 
would be required to carry out these additional tasks. It is expected that fewer staff resources 
would be required if an existing institution was used.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. 

Economic, environmental and social impacts of implementation 

The following table contains a qualitative evaluation of the effects of collective action under 
the  main  challenges,  assuming  a  governance  structure  is  identified  which  is  able  to  ensure 
implementation. Annex 4 contains the detailed analysis on which the table is based.  

Table 4. Policy scenario impacts 

Strategic Action 
Eutrophication  
Marine biodiversity 
Hazardous substances 
Pollution from ships 
Climate change 
Internal market 
Innovation 
Entrepreneurship, SMEs, human resources 
Agriculture, fisheries, forestry 
Internal and external transport links 
Energy security, energy market integration and energy efficiency 
Attractiveness for citizens and tourists 
Maritime safety 
Cross border crime 
Major emergencies at sea and on land 

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
e

+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
- 
0 
0 
+ 
+/- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
0 
+ 

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
e

+/- 
+/- 
+/- 
0 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+/- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+/- 
+ 
+ 

l
a
i
c
o
s

+/- 
+ 
+ 
0 
+ 
+/- 
+ 
+ 
+/- 
+/- 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 

This analysis demonstrates how certain improved responses to certain challenges will provide 
unequivocal  benefits  in  terms  of  sustainable  development.  However,  others  may  involve 
trade-offs between different policy objectives. This is particularly the case for environmental 
and transport challenges. This highlights the importance of an integrated approach to policy 
implementation,  particularly  since  the  costs  and  benefits  of  certain  initiatives  may  be 
distributed  unequally  across  the  region  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,  enhanced  institutional  capability  to  ensure  implementation  of 
actions,  improved  visibility  and  accountability)  on  a  general  level,  in  addition,  the  options 
were  assessed  according  to  their  ability  to  address  the  key governance  challenges  under  the 
four  themes  of  the  strategy  (environment,  prosperity,  accessibility  and  safety  and  security). 
Governance challenges identified within the four themes of the strategy show similarities. The 
main governance challenges for environmental issues 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  prosperity  issues  are  lack  of  coordination  at  the 
policy level, with the exception of the challenge related to the internal market, where there is 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
lack  of  coordination  at  the  level  of  implementation.  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 between 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  better  equipped  to  enforce  implementation  due  to    the 
oversight role of the Council and the Commission in terms of related EU policy.  

•  The  governance  challenges  most  obvious  in  issues  related  to  prosperity,  a  lack  of 
coordination at the policy level, require a strong transnational dimension. Given the strong 
East-West  disparities  and  different  focus  across  the  region,  commitment  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  coordination  at  implementation  level  and  lack  of 
alignment  of  funding  could  only  be  appropriately  addressed  by  an  overall  governance 
structure with sufficiently high level representation, 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  also  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 specific objectives which were identified. 

Table 5. Evaluation of governance options’ effectiveness  

Governance 
challenge 

Governance option 

No additional structure 

Reliance on existing institution 

Community approach 

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 

Lack of capability 
to enforce 
implementation 

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 

EN 

32 

   EN 

Fragmentation of 
policies 

Improved as each MS would 
have same strategy to follow 

No mandate for integrated approach 
to EU action plan 

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

Unclear 
responsibilities 

No improvement 

Addressed by assigning general 
responsibility of implementation of 
collective action to organization: but 
this would require change in nature. 

Improved: Member States are 
responsible but lack 
coordination structure 

Not improved – no mandate to effect 
change in other organisations  

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 

Addressed through higher 
level coordination, 
integrated approach 
identified in action plan 

Addressed through higher 
level coordination 

Addressed through 
identification of roles in 
action plan 

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 

It should be noted that Russia, a member of the 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  based  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 strategy’s objectives. 

Table 6. Comparison of governance options 

Contribution to achievement of specific 
objectives 

No change 

No additional 
structure 

improved coordination and coherence 
institutional capability to ensure 
implementation of actions 
improved visibility and accountability 
TOTAL 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
++ 

+ 
3+ 

Reliance on 
existing 
institution 
+ 
++ 

+ 
4+ 

Community 
approach 

+++ 
++++ 

++ 
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 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. This would therefore be the only approach which is able 
to fully address issues (e.g. agriculture and fisheries) where there is a significant Community 
competence  in  an  integrated  manner  while  maintaining  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 outside the strategy as in the other options.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
While  this  analysis  demonstrates  that  the  most  effective  and  consistent  option  is  the 
Community  approach,  it  does  not  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  demonstrated,  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 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.  

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The implementation of the EUSBSR should be monitored at three levels. It is assumed that 
the  option  “Community  approach”  is  adopted  as  this  provides  the  greatest  scope  for  robust 
monitoring and evaluation arrangements.  

•  The strategy should set out milestones for putting in place the necessary structures (putting 
in place thematic working groups, establishing responsible 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 priorities in the action 
plan with a detailed framework to allow assessment 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 evolution in the BSR in 
respect of the key challenges. A first draft set is presented 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,  prosperity,  accessibility  and  security  could  be 
evaluated. One of the first tasks undertaken should be to examine whether further analysis 
is  required  to  further  develop  indicators  and  instruments  for  assessing  the  impact  of  the 
strategy.  

Reporting arrangements would need to be established. The Commission could report on a 6 
monthly  or  annual  basis  on  progress  towards  achieving  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  appropriate  make  proposals  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  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 

34 

   EN 

Table 7. Proposed headline indicators 

Environment: 

Eutrophication: riverine loads of phosphorus and nitrogen  

Marine  biodiversity  and  overfishing:  Breeding  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  equipped  to  recycle  wastewater  and  provide 
electricity 

Progress on reaching the national energy efficiency goals  

Increase in production of electricity 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 the approved TEN-T projects 

Change in number of foreign university students 

Safety 
security 

and 

No. of ship accidents resulting in oil spills or personal injury 

Number of drug trafficking crimes recorded by the police 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexes 

ANNEX 1 - EU STRATEGY FOR THE BALTIC SEA REGION - PLANNING 

Task 
Communication + Annex 
1st draft 
ISC 
Final draft (modifications after ISC) 
Adoption by the College + Translation 
Sending to the Council 
Stocktaking document 
Input  from  MS,  other  DGs,  Geographical  units,  socio-economic  analysis 
of DG REGIO, Conferences and Roundtables, evaluation and fact-finding 
missions 
Input from the Impact Assessment 
Final draft  
Procedure for publication (Staff WP) 
Impact Assessment 
Public consultation 
Public consultation 
Use of the replies to the public consultation 
Impact Assessment Report 
Submission to IA Board 
IA Board 
Action Plan (optional) 
Final draft (Staff WP) 
Procedure for publication (Staff WP) 

Date 

09/03/2009 
01/04/2009 - 22/04/2009 
30/04/2009 
04/05/2009 - 29/05/2009 
01/06/2009 

by 31/12/2008 

09/02/2009 - 13/02/2009 
15/01/2009 
later 

03/11/2008 - 31/12/2008 
05/01/2009 - 30/ 01/2009 

04/02/2009 
04/03/2009 

28/04/2009 
After the Council 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION - SUMMARY  

Consultation process 

The EU Strategy for the BSR is based on a series of consultations: 

–  Consultation  of  20  Directorates  Generals  of  the  European  Commission  which  all 

contributed in their field of expertise; 

–  Consultation  of  Member  States,  Regional  and  Local  Authorities  and  stakeholders  (Inter-
Governmental  and  Non-Governmental  Bodies,  Experts  and  representatives  from  the 
private  sector)  in  the  BSR  (through  many  meetings,  2  conferences,  4  roundtables  and 
official position papers presented to the Commission). 

–  General  Public  Consultation  via  the  internet.  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  individuals  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  representatives  from  the  private  sector  out  of  which  2  were  experts  / 
researchers and 3 were individuals. 

–  The expectations of the Member States 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 Inter-Governmental and Non-Governmental Bodies 
do not have the authority needed to ensure actions are implemented in practice. 

–  In addition, the general view is that no new institution should 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  that  the  decisions  taken  at  the  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 would be desirable for several stakeholders. 

EN 

37 

   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  sustainable  place  the  main 
priorities  are  reduction  of  nutrient  inputs  to  the  sea  to  acceptable  levels,  preservation  of 
natural  zones  and  biodiversity,  reduction  of  the  use  and  impact  of  hazardous  substances, 
limitation  of  the  risk  of  oil  spill  pollution,  reduction  of  the  pollution  from  the  ships  and 
mitigation / adaptation to climate change. 

–  Regarding the objective to make the BSR a prosperous place the main priorities are better 
innovation,  promotion  of 
implementation  of 
entrepreneurship, 
issues), 
reinforcement of relations with Russia (including the improvement of customs procedures 
in Russia), sustainability of fishing and good use of agriculture and forestry. 

labour  market  (including  education 

the  single  market, 

integration  of 

fostering  of 

the 

–  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,  maritime  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 taken 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) 

(2) 

Sectoral  integration,  including  fishing  and  agricultural  sector  and  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning, is important 

Need good implementation mechanism: align government structures. Helcom brings 
together  9  Coastal  states  and  Commission  and  also  (when  required)  Belarus  and 
Ukraine.  This  works  and  provides  level  playing  field.  Links  between  BSAP  and 
Directives mean that Helcom supports EU policy. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
(3) 

(4) 

Alignment  of  financing  instruments:  needed  due  to  limited  human  and  financial 
resources. Offer cooperation structure to identify synergies and gaps. 

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 and 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) 

(2) 

Integrated approach with many sectors and actors 

EU strategy with strength 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.  HELCOM  cannot  address  these  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  implementation  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  “Baltic  Sea  Regions”  at  the  Committee  of  the  Regions, 
made four points: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Concept  of  sustainability.  Economic  and  social  aspects  are  part  of  sustainability. 
All three legs must be supported.  

Council should be responsible. Need strong preparatory group with Commission in 
chair and local and regional representatives. Annual Baltic Sea Forum to review and 
follow-up work. 

Projects  financed  through  Structural  Funds.  Flagship  projects  should  be 
important feature of implementation. Should make Baltic a Best Practice Region. 

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  the  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  farmers  could  do  much  to  reduce  effluents  and 

EN 

39 

   EN 

called  for  awareness  raising  and  incentives  to  help.  Better  classifications  of  potentially 
dangerous  substances  would  also  help.  Novel  preparations  with  fewer  risks  than  the  old 
ones  should  be  introduced  more  rapidly.  Finally,  he  called  for  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  International  Financial  Institutions  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 target to treat all wastewater 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  approved.  Even  for  biodiversity  there 
are already agreed integrated protected areas. Advocates using the BSAP as starting point 
for setting priorities for example wastewater facilities for ships 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.  Livestock  density  is  large 
part of the problem.  

•  BSSSC  Maritime  Group:  Reducing  pollution  of  ships  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  award  5  years  ago.  Since  then  nothing  happened. 

Should reintroduce for motivational effects 

EN 

40 

   EN 

•  West  Finland:  Farms  are  doubling  in  size  every  ten  years.  As  size  increases  drainage 
becomes more critical so there should be funding to establish wetlands. Also the creation 
of regional indicators would motivate regional politicians. 

Summary  Agricultural  and  Fisheries  policies  are  critical  and  subsidies  must  be  for 
genuine  public  goods,  not  pollution.  Need  ecological  protected  areas  in  spatial  planning 
system.  Need  excellent  implementation  system  Need  annual  meeting  –  how  to  link  in 
different bodies and actors? 

Maritime Policy Workshop 

Moderator: Mr. Pierre Schellekens, Head of Unit, 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 related 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  levels  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 competition for the use of the marine space. 

–  Maritime surveillance: Cooperation already exists, but needs to be reinforced both across 

sectors and across borders. 

–  Clean  Baltic  shipping:  An  "umbrella  action"  covering  shore-side  electricity,  treatment  of 

waste-water etc. is needed. 

–  Fisheries: Problems connected to discard and control in fisheries remain serious. Reform of 

the common fisheries policy (CFP) will be launched this year. 

–  Maritime  clusters:  Increasing  the  networks  between  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 different 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  upcoming  meeting  of  Baltic  Sea  Region  ministers  for 
planning. Mr Pouplier's main messages to the Commission in terms of spatial planning issues 
in the EUSBSR were:  

–  Focus on management of sea resources; 

EN 

41 

   EN 

–  Focus on protecting the environment; 

–  Initiate a transnational system for maritime spatial planning; 

–  Make  best  use  of  existing  organisations  in  the  BSR  (VASAB,  HELCOM)  when  dealing 

with spatial planning. 

Mr Poul Muller of the CPMR Baltic Sea Commission 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 solving bottlenecks in particular 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 projects 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 planning, transport, clean shipping and fisheries. 
Mr  Seele  of  the  Federal  government  of  Germany  announced  that  a  maritime  policy  expert 
group  is  being  established  within  the  auspices  of  the  CBSS  and  would  deal  with  many  of 
these issues. 

A  representative  from  the  South  Baltic  Sea  Programme  noted  that  there  is  a  remarkable 
difference in willingness between Member States to implement 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 was contributing to the 
problems of TEN-T implementation. Mr Vuorimaki (RELEX) pointed out that the upcoming 
Northern  Dimension  Partnership  for  Transport  and  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,  economic  environmental 
incentives  for  the  shipping  industry,  a  plea  for  clean  cruises,  labour  issues  in  the  shipping 
industry, and an award for best practice. Mr Schellekens replied that clean shipping is a matter 
of  reputation  for  the  industry  and  that  industry,  partners  and  regions  must  work  together  to 
address  issues.  Taxation  of  shore  side  electricity  is  one  major  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 measures (e.g. port electricity) and in the economic 
downturn it would be unlikely that ports themselves do it. 

EN 

42 

   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 exclusive community competence, DG MARE is working 
on  concrete  technical  control  measures  to  improve  the  situation.  Mr  Muller  did  not  want  to 
involve  the  CAP  in  EUSBSR,  seeing  the  CAP  as  "high  politics"  not  having  its  place  in  the 
strategy.  

Prosperity Workshop 

The workshop was moderated by Björn Månsson, Chief Editor, Hufvudstadsbladet, Helsinki, 
and  included  presentations  from  the  European  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  the  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  the  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  highlighted  by  the  experts  and  during  the  following 
discussions: 

Mr Ahnlid agreed that it is important to improve the functionality of the internal market. To 
support  this,  regional  Internal  Market  partnerships  (fostering  close  regional  public  authority 
cooperation)  could  be  developed.  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 information system. It would also be important to 
improve the brand and recognition of the internal market, by informing on new opportunities 
offered  by  e.g.  the  service  directive,  to  develop  user  friendly  access  to  and  integration  of 
Single Points of Contact and to develop an Internal Market guide with a regional component. 
Finally SOLVIT was mentioned in very positive terms even if it could be further improved.  

EN 

43 

   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  fostering  innovation,  the  importance  of  strengthening  student 
exchanges, entrepreneurship, and the particular importance of an integrated 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 education, science and research. The region is also 
very diverse with different languages, ethnic and religious backgrounds and different levels of 
prosperity. He also brought a social perspective to the discussion and claimed that prosperity 
in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  should  concern  all  individuals  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  individual  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  transportation  of  raw  materials  (minerals,  forests  etc)  in  the 
north.  Special  account  would  also  have  to  be  taken  of  innovation  and  specialization,  in 
particular  with  regard  to  cold  climate  technology,  and  natural  resources  like  the  wild 
salmon.  

–  There  should  be  equal  opportunities  for  everybody,  including  less  well  educated  young 

people who need to get access to the labour market. 

–  Education,  science  and  research  have  a  big  potential  and  cooperation  between  regional 
universities, schools, vocational education institutions and labour 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 order 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  Germany,  Lithuania  and  Russian  Federation 
(Kaliningrad) 

EN 

44 

   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 the issue noting that safety and security would 
need  to  be  understood  widely,  not  only  to  encompass  issues  related  to  maritime  safety.  He 
offered  definitions  on  the  terms  and  noted  that  all  people,  including  various  vulnerable 
groups,  must  feel  safe  and  secure  and  thus  we  need  to  inform  public  and  tackle  racism, 
xenophobia and intolerance. He presented 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 cross 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  examples  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  cooperates  with  its  Norwegian,  Swedish,  German  and 
Polish  counterparts  in  this  work.  Her  main  recommendations  were  increased  use  of  spatial 
planning,  e-navigation,  exchange  of  data  and  AIS  (Automatic  Identification  System  (of 
vessels)). 

Ms Toril Roscher-Nielsen, Director General in the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care 
Services,  Chair  of  the  Committee  of  Senior  Representatives  for  the  Northern  Dimension 
Partnership for Public Health and Social Wellbeing (NDPHS), considered that public health is 
a cross-cutting issue that relates to all four objectives  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-microbial  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  importance  of  sharing  international  expertise  and 
know-how  to  create  sustainable  societal  security  by  encouraging  collaboration  on  a  day-to-
day  basis  in  risk  management  and  societal  security  training.  The  actors  should  be  defence 
forces,  national,  regional  and  local  administrations,  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 existing cooperation function in border controls, in the task force 
on organised crime, in FRONTEX coordinating the work on the external borders of the EU 
and in the Eurosur monitoring coastal areas in all EU. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

Mr Thomas Przybyla of the Federal Police of Germany raised as important issues trafficking 
in human beings, threats to energy sources (wind parks, pipelines) and mentioned an existing 
intranet  for  information  exchange  and  the  status  of  BSR  as  a  model  region  in  FRONTEX 
activities. 

Mr Paavo  Pirttimäki of  the Finnish  Ministry of  Interior mentioned the importance of good 
cooperation with Belarus, Ukraine and Russia in security matters. 

Mr  Christoffer  Gyllenstierna  of  the  Swedish  Road  Administration  raised  traffic  accident 
prevention, in which Sweden has good experience that 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 

46 

   EN 

ANNEX 3 - ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGES FACED BY BSR 

Challenge 

Type 
of 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Specific/sub-
Sea 
regional) 

TO  MAKE  THE  BSR 
AN 
ENVIRONMENTALLY 
SUSTAINABLE 
PLACE 

The  main  problems 
are eutrophication and 
which 
overfishing, 
directly 
both 
are 
connected 
the 
to 
ecological 
specificities  of 
Baltic 
Sea 
common pool 

the 
basin: 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
specific  as  the  Baltic 
Sea  basin  has  very 
particular 
environmental 
characteristics and is in 
a particularly bad state.

To  reduce  the  nutrient 
inputs 
to 
to 
acceptable levels 

the  sea 

Excess  of  algae  and 
oxygen  free  bottom 
water 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
specific 
(the  whole 
river basin) 

from 

the 
Pollution 
rivers  and  airborne 
pollution 

Lack  of  mechanisms 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
to  EU 
with  respect 
policies 

See below 

See below 

Type  of  governance 
(Non-
problem 
implementation,  non-
enforcement, 
poor 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

a 

good 
There 
is 
cooperation 
forum 
(HELCOM)  but  it  is 
difficult  to  make  the 
actions  happen  on  the 
ground 
as 
commitments  taken  in 
HELCOM 
not 
are 
always respected 

poor 
HELCOM: 
coordination 
with 
other  policies  and  lack 
cross-sectoral 
of 
dialogue 

HELCOM  Action 
Plan 
on 
eutrophication 

More wetlands 

HELCOM 
lacks 
mandate  to  implement 
enforce 
or 
to 
by 
implementation 

More 
cross-
sectoral  dialogue 
between 
environment 

/ 

Consider 
eutrophication  when 
implementing 
the 
CAP  (less  fertilisers 
near  rivers,  efficient 
use 
fertilisers, 
recycling nutrients) 

of 

More research through 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
  
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

others 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

industry 
agriculture. 

and 

BONUS 169 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
specific 

poor 
HELCOM: 
with 
coordination 
other  policies  and  lack 
of 
cross-sectoral 
dialogue 

HELCOM 
lacks 
mandate  to  implement 
enforce 
to 
or 
implementation 
by 
others 

HELCOM  Action 
on 
Plan 
biodiversity 

More 
cross-
sectoral  dialogue 
between 
environment 
fishing 
agriculture. 

/ 
and 

Implementation of EU 
regarding 
legislation 
catches 
limits, 
reporting  on  catches 
and 
of 
discards 
catches 

To 
preserve 
zones and biodiversity 

natural 

to clean the water 

Long  lasting  effect  of 
the nutrient loads 

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 

To  reduce  the  use  and 
impact  of  hazardous 
substances 

Organic  contaminants 
and heavy metals 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
specific 

Chemical weapons 

poor 
HELCOM: 
coordination 
with 
other  policies  and  lack 
cross-sectoral 
of 

HELCOM  Action 
Plan 
on 
hazardous 
substances 

Assess  the  effects  of 
hormone 
like 
substances 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

Hazardous  substances 
remain 
long 
for  a 
period 

Dioxin in fishes 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

the 
of 

Researching 
impact 
hazardous 
substances  on  the 
Baltic 
sea 
ecosystem. 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

dialogue 

lacks 
HELCOM 
mandate  to  implement 
enforce 
or 
to 
implementation 
by 
others 

HELCOM  does  not 
cover some substances 

To  become  a  model 
region 
clean 
for 
shipping 

More 
navigating 

ships 

are 

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 
industry, 
shipping 
while 
voluntary 
measures  are  Baltic 
Sea  Region  specific 
the  urgent 
due 
to 
environmental 
status 
of the sea. 

poor 
HELCOM: 
coordination 
with 
other  policies  and  lack 
of 
cross-sectoral 
dialogue 

lacks 
HELCOM 
mandate  to  implement 
enforce 
or 
to 
implementation 
by 
others 

HELCOM  Action 
Plan  on  maritime 
transport 

to 

Voluntary 
measures 
reduce 
wastewater 
discharges 

Provide 
electricity in ports

Eliminate discharge of 
sewage 
ships 
from 
through  a  negotiation 
at 
International 
Maritime Organisation 

the 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

To  adapt 
change 

to  climate 

Impacts  of  climate 
change  in  the  Baltic 
Sea  Region  will  be 
high 

impacts 

Local 
of 
climate  change  are 
unknown 

Adaptation  to  climate 
change  will  have  to 
take place at all levels, 
to 
adaptation 
and 
certain 
are 
impacts 
best  taken  on  a  Baltic 
Sea  Region  specific 
level. 

TO MAKE THE BSR A 
PROSPEROUS PLACE 

EU-Wide/sub  regional 
with  negative  effects 
on 
the  Baltic  Sea 
Region level 

The  main  problem  is 
lack  of  coordination 
leading  to  remaining 
or 
trade 
of 
suboptimal 
and 
resources 
economic 
potentials 
not being realised. 

barriers 
use 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

poor 
HELCOM: 
coordination 
with 
other  policies  and  lack 
of 
cross-sectoral 
dialogue 

lacks 
HELCOM 
mandate  to  implement 
enforce 
or 
to 
by 
implementation 
others 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

Promote 
region 
‘green’ one 

as 

the 
a 

Implement  fully 
EU-Russia 
efficiency initiative 

the 
energy 

Increase  the  use 
of 
renewable 
energies 

joint 
Promote 
the 
research  on 
local  impacts  of 
climate change 

See below 

See below 

To remove hindrances to  Implementation 

Internal  market  EU  no 

coordination  Aligning 

Open  up  the  public 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

the internal market in the 
Baltic Sea Region 

failure,  effect  of  other 
policies  (e.g.  taxation, 
market 
transport) 
protection  (e.g.  labour 
market) 

problem, 
level 
cooperation 
between 
any  group  of  MS 
in 
possible 
implementation 
of 
Internal Market 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

Member 
between 
States 
on 
implementation  of  the 
internal  market 
on 
goods and capital 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

the 

implementation 
of 
internal 
market  between 
implementing 
bodies 
in 
Baltic  Sea 
remove 
markets barriers. 

the 
to 
internal 

sector to competition 

Remove barriers to the 
cross-border  provision 
of services  

inform 

the 
Better 
SMEs  and  the  public 
and 
sharing/exchanging 
competence. 

Improve 
exploitation 
research 
patents 

the 
of 
through 

exploit 

To 
full 
potential of the region in 
research and innovation 

the 

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 
In 
is 
suboptimal. 
addition, 
systemic 
failure may be present 
interactions 
(i.e. 

and 
Research 
currently 
innovation 
mainly  in  national  and 
EU policies.  

Increasing 
by 
competitiveness 
critical 
increasing 
mass 
through 
cooperation  for  which 
generally  geographic 

lack  of  capacity 
implement 

to 

innovation  gap  not 
addressed in a strategic 
way  no  policy  level 
coordination 

a 

Establish 
common 
innovation 
strategy  for 
the 
region  and  create 
pan-Baltic  Triple 
Helix 

Common  use  of 
and 
critical 
expensive  R&D 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

promote 
To 
and 
entrepreneurship 
strengthen  SMEs, 
to 
increase the efficient use 
of  human  resources  in 
the region 

proximity is necessary, 
the  substantial  gap  in 
innovation 
performance 
risks 
leading  to  suboptimal 
use 
resources 
(especially  human)  at 
the BSR level. . 

of 

Promotion  of  SMEs 
and  entrepreneurship, 
and 
the 
increasing 
efficient  use  of  human 
resources  is  mainly  a 
national 
EU 
priority, cooperation at 
BSR 
level  mainly 
limited  to  exchange  of 
information. 

and 

is 
between  players 
suboptimal 
for 
generating or enabling 
innovation).  

Positive  externalities 
produced by education 
to society as a whole. 

the 

Positive  externalities 
joint 
in 
of 
development 
certain 
like 
environmental 
technology 
design. 

sectors 

and 

No  matching  between 
supply and demand of 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

innovation 

and 
infrastructure 

no 
joint  action  on 
matching  supply  and 
demand  in  the  labour 
market 

Organise 
migration 
more 
way 

labour 
in  a 
cohesive 

no 
coordination 
between  policies  (e.g. 
education and labour) 

has 

Jointly 
develop 
sectors  where  the 
a 
region 
future 
strong 
potential 
like 
environmental 
technology 
design 

and 

Entrepreneurship 
training  a  university 
level 

Maximise  the  positive 
effects of new rules 

Secure 
access 
capital for SMEs 

to 

creating 

Exchange  experience 
on 
better 
framework  conditions 
for SMEs. 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

labour  at  the  Baltic 
Sea level 

Make  the  BSR  a 
leader in design 

Promote 
attract 
investment 
BSR 

trade 

and 
more 
the 

into 

To  reinforce  sustainable 
agriculture,  forestry  and 
fishing 

Agriculture 
forestry 
national level. 

relevant 

and 
at 

BSR  level  cooperation 
is not institutionalized 

Fishery:  all  countries 
with  a  Baltic  Sea 
coastline 

The forests are critical 
sources  of  biological 
diversity  and  other 
ecological, 
environmental 
and 
social  values.  The 
forests  are  capable  to 
accumulate 
large 
amounts  of  CO2,  and 
hence  to  reduce  the 
effect. 
greenhouse 

new 

Develop 
approaches 
appropriate  to  the 
BSR 
for 
sustainable 
and 
farming 
forestry 
the 
Baltic Sea climate 
the 
and  with 
special 
environmental 

in 

Increase 
mobility 

labour 

Apply 
recognition 
qualifications 

mutual 
of 

Enhance the combined 
the  rural 
effects  of 
development 
programmes 

Ensure  fast  broadband 
connection  for  rural 
areas 

Develop 

sustainable 

EN 

53 

EN 

 
  
 
Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

considerations 
that  need  to  be 
observed. 

strategies for wood 

Ensure 
fishing 

sustainable 

Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

of 

Thus, 
economic, 
ecological  and  social 
the 
optimizing 
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. 
illegal 
In 
catches 
indicate 
enforcement failure. 

addition 

TO  MAKE  THE  BSR 
AN 
ACCESSIBLE 
AND  ATTRACTIVE 
PLACE 

the 

The  main  problems 
are 
energy 
isolation  of  the  Baltic 
States and the need to 
transport 
make 

the 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
as 
specific 
and 
accessibility 
are 
attractiveness 

There  is  basic  lack  of 
cooperation  on  these 
issues. 
Infrastructure 
are 
investments 
governed  largely  from 

See below 

See below 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

To  improve  the  access 
and 
efficiency 
to, 
security  of  the  energy 
markets 

infrastructure  much 
more coherent 

linked to a territory 

Lack 
infrastructures  

of 

energy 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
specific 

not 

Infrastructure 
sufficiently 
in 
interlinked, 
particular in the Baltic 
States  which  are  not 
properly  connected  to 
the rest of the market 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

national  perspectives 
is 
only. 
of 
fragmentation 
effort. 

There 

TENs  are  coordinated 
at  policy  level  but  not 
sufficiently at the level 
of implementation, EU 
funding not aligned 

TENs  are  of  limited 
other 
and 
scope, 
BSR 
of 
projects 
relevance 
not 
are 
included 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

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 
good 

region 

needs 
transport 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
specific 

TENs  are  coordinated 
at  policy  level  but  not 

Coordinate 
national  transport 

the  Northern 

Use 
Dimension 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

systems 
distances  are 
climate, 
ecosystem…) 

(periphery, 
long, 
sensitive 

region 

The 
is  not 
sufficiently  connected 
to  Russia  (Asia)  and 
the rest of Europe 

maintain 
To 
attractiveness  of 
the 
Baltic Sea Region for its 
reinforce 
to 
citizens 
attractiveness 
for 
tourists 

educated 
Young 
people 
rural 
leave 
areas  and  leave  the 
(the 
region 
attractiveness 
is 
fragile) 

Tourism  opportunities 
are not fully seized  

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

policies 

Promote short-sea 
shipping 

for 

Partnership 
the 
relations  with  Russia 
(better connections) 

Implement the TEN-T 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

sufficiently at the level 
of implementation, EU 
funding not aligned 

TENs  are  of  limited 
other 
and 
scope, 
BSR 
of 
projects 
relevance 
not 
are 
included 

Baltic  Sea  Region 
specific 

is 

not 
cooperation 
institutionalized  at  the 
level of governments 

Highlight 
sustainable 
tourism potential 

increase 
Further 
exchanges  of  citizens 
and students 

Develop 
people actions 

people-to-

Develop  a  BSR 
critical  mass  by 
networking 
the 
tourism industry 

Network 
universities 
create 
curricula 

and 
common 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

To make the BSR a safe 
and secure place 

To  decrease  volume  of, 
and  harm  done  by  cross 
border crime 

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 

Law 
enforcement 
failures at internal and 
external borders cause 
security deficits. 

and 

Crime  and  hazards  are 
complex 
of 
impact  and 
variable 
spatial  scope.  Crime 
a 
and  hazards  of 
and 
certain 
impact 
best 
managed at BSR level, 
others  at  national  or 
EU level. 

scope 
are 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

See below 

See below 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

coordination 
Poor 
(many 
different 
systems  and  forums  at 
and 
many 
levels) 
of 
fragmentation 
(sectoral 
policies 
the 
fragmentation  of 
disaster 
crime 
management cycles) 

and 

Operational 
mostly 
cooperation 
along  borders  between 
high  and  low  income 
also 
countries, 
relating  to  the  region's 
logistics sector. 

but 

and 

sectoral 
geographic 
fragmentation  of  law 
enforcement 
competencies  

(in 
part)  Establish 
joint  customs,  border, 
police  structures  for 
operational 
cooperation  

Follow  up  and 
decide  about  the 
further integration 
law  enforcement 
functions and task 
(BSTF)  

(in part) Establish 
customs, 
joint 
police 
border, 
for 
structures 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

operational 
cooperation  

To  become  a 
leading 
region in maritime safety 
and security 

Pollution 
common 
resource 

of 

sea: 
pool 

countries  with 

All 
Baltic Sea coastline 

sectoral 
geographic 
fragmentation 
competencies 

and 

of 

Create  a  common 
maritime 
management 
system  

To  reinforce  protection 
from  major  emergencies 
at sea and on land 

Pollution  of  sea  and 
other  hazards  posing 
shared 
to 
risks 
infrastructure 
or 
environment: common 
pool resource 

Commonly  apply 
surveillance tools 

Implement 
the 
work  programme 
of  the  HELCOM 
Response Group 

Set  up  a  winter 
storms/storm 
surge platform 

between 
cooperation 
involved 
in 
agencies 
to  marine 
response 
pollution  accidents  is 
relatively 
well 
advanced  but  there  is 
for 
scope 
strengthening 
some 
existing actions. 

and 
a 

Hazards  are  complex, 
varying 
spatial 
in 
scope  and  intensity  of 
impact 
thus 
variable 
require 
disaster 
cycle 
management.  In  some 
level 
cases 
BSR 
management 
the 
most  appropriate.  The 
two  main  hazards  of 
the  BSR  are  marine 

is 

the 

fleet 
Ensure 
transporting 
energy 
products  is  up  to  the 
technological 
highest 
standards  

and 

Provide 
information 
equipment 
transport resources 

share 
on 
and 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Challenge 

of 
Type 
(Common 
enforcement etc.) 

problem 
pool, 

Level (EU-Wide/Baltic 
Sea 
Specific/sub-
regional) 

Baltic 
Actions 

Sea 

Coordination  Actions 
with  respect 
to  EU 
policies 

Type  of  governance 
problem 
(Non-
implementation,  non-
poor 
enforcement, 
coordination,  unclear 
responsibilities, 
fragmentation 
policies) 

of 

pollution accidents and 
storms/storm 
winter 
both 
surges  which 
often have impacts that 
require  cross  border 
disaster management. 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
Headline Actions 

Main focus 

environmental impact 

economic impact 

social impact 

ANNEX 4 - POLICY SCENARIO IMPACTS 

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) 

To preserve 
biodiversity and 
natural resources 

-Implementation of the 
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action 
plan. 
(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.  

+/- 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. 

Increasing water qualities are likely to 
increase attractiveness for tourists. 

+/- 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. 

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. 

+ Increasing biodiversity and better 
maritime and territorial planning 
are likely to contribute to a higher 
quality of life 

+ 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. 

EN 

60 

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. 

+ small improvement in air 
quality and water quality 

+/- 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. 

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. 

+ Increased food safety 

0 no significant impact, slight 
improvement in quality of 
environment.  

To reduce the 
pollution from the 
ships 

To adapt to 
climate change 

To fully 
implement the 
Single Market 

- 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) 

- increased cooperation and 
coordination of national 
research and adaptation 
measures 

(new measure) 

- facilitating cross border 
business of SMEs; 
- enhance coordination and 
cooperation between national 
authorities in managing the 
Single Market. 

(Mainly already existing 

+ 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 

- 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 

61 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Headline Actions 

Main focus 

environmental impact 

economic impact 

social impact 

To foster 
innovation and 
entrepreneurship 

measures, enforced 
governance) 

- 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. 

+ impact on regional growth 
potential. 

+ promotion of SMEs may increase growth 
potential.  

0 no clear impact 

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) 

+ 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 

62 

EN 

 
  
 
Headline Actions 

Main focus 

environmental impact 

economic impact 

social impact 

To create an 
integrated energy 
market 

To improve 
energy efficiency 

To improve 
custom 
procedures 

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) 

-District heating systems;  
 -close cooperation in 
implementation of EU Energy 
Performance in Buildings 
Directives. 

(New measures) 

- monitor Russia's legislative 
and procedural measures;  
 - facilitate physical cross 
border crossing. 

- improve infrastructure of 
main border crossing points 

(enhancing already existing 
measures) 

+ 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 

+ energy security is an important 
aspect for creating growth and 
competitiveness. 

+ higher energy security will create 
sustainable growth potential, mainly in the 3 
Baltic States 

+ impact on energy security  

+ Small impact on energy security  

+/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. 

+/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. 

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 

63 

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. 

+ sustainable tourism will lead to 
a valorisation of areas of high 
nature value, promoting 
preservation 

(enhance existing measures) 

+sustainable tourism will be an important 
factor for future growth and diversification 
of regional economies.  

+ sustainable tourism is an 
important factor for diversification 
of regional economies 

+sustainable tourism will require 
infrastructure that increases attractiveness 
and accessibility 

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 

64 

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 

65 

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 

Eutrophication 

Marine biodiversity 

Hazardous 
substances 

Pollution 
ships 

from 

Address 
institutional 
weakness  to  enforce  or 
implement 

lack 

Address 
of 
capacity  to  make  trade-
between 
offs 
and 
environmental 
economic issues 

lack 

of 
Address 
capacity  to  make  trade-
between 
offs 
environmental 
and 
economic issues  

Address 
institutional 
weakness  to  enforce  or 
implement 
environmental 
considerations 
Address 
institutional 
weakness  to  enforce  or 
implement 
Address 
of 
capacity  to  make  trade-
between 
offs 
environmental 
and 
economic issues 

lack 

institutional 
Address 
weakness  to  enforce  or 
implement 
Address 
of 
capacity  to  make  trade-
between 
offs 
environmental 
and 
economic issues 

lack 

No change (0) 

No change (0)   No change (0) 

Improved (+) 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change (0) 

Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
No change (0) 

Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved (+) 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

Improved (+) 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change (0) 

Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
No change (0) 

Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved (+) 

No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 

Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 

Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 

Climate change 

lack 

Address 
of 
coordination  with  other 
sectors 

No change (0) 

Address  low  level  of 
coordination 

No change (0) 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
Challenge 

Governance objectives 

No change 

Internal market and 
trade 
with 
neighbouring 
countries 

lack 

Address 
of 
coordination  on  some 
of 
issues 
implementation 

No change (0) 

Innovation  

Address 
cooperation 
and coordination among 
organizations 
the 
policy level 

at 

No change (0) 

Entrepreneurship, 
SMEs, 
resources 

human 

Agriculture, 
fisheries, forestry 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

No change (0) 

of 

lack 

lack 

Address 
capacity to implement 
Address 
of 
coordination  at  policy 
level  between  MS  in 
labour 
particular 
market 

in 

lack 

of 
Address 
between 
coordination 
in 
sectoral 
particular 
for 
agriculture and fisheries 

policies 

Energy 
energy 
integration 
energy efficiency  

security, 
market 
and 

lack 

of 
Address 
coordination 
at 
implementation level of 
TENs 

No change (0) 

Address  limited  scope 
of existing initiatives 

No change (0) 

lack 

of 
Address 
coordination  at  policy 
level 

No change (0) 

Internal 
external 
links 

and 
transport 

lack 

Address 
coordination 
implementation level 

of 
at 

No change (0) 

No additional 
structure 

insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change (0) 

No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
Improvement 
from  existence 
of 
integrated 
strategy (0) 

No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 

Reliance on 
existing 
institution 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
No change (0) 

Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 

Community 
approach 

and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved (+) 

Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
Challenge 

Governance objectives 

No change 

Address  limited  scope 
of existing initiatives 

No change (0) 

Attractiveness 
citizens 
tourists 

for 
and 

Address 
coordination 
MS 

lack 

of 
between 

No change (0) 

Cross-border crime 

lack 

of 
Address 
coordination within and 
between sectors 

No change (0) 

Address  limited  scope 
of existing initiatives 

No change (0) 

Maritime safety 

Address 
between 
fragmentation of effort 

coordination 
sectors  and 

No change (0) 

Major  emergencies 
at sea and on land 

Address 
cooperation 
areas 

lack 
in 

of 
some 

No change (0) 

Total 

0 

No additional 
structure 

from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
Insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
Insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
No change in 
governance, 
insignificant 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (0) 
0 

Reliance on 
existing 
institution 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 

Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 

Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
Improved 
governance, 
and small 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 
20+ 

Community 
approach 

from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 

Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (+) 

Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
Improved 
governance, 
and 
improvement 
from existence 
of integrated 
strategy (++) 
42+ 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
AIS 
Baltic 21 
BaltMet Inno 
BaSIC 
BASREC 
BDF 
BEMIP 
BONUS 169 
BONUS ERA-NET 

BSR 
BSR CBP 

BSTF-OC 
CBSS 
CIS 
EBRD 
E-BSR 
EGTC 
EIB 
EMSA 
EUSBSR 
GOFREP 
HELCOM 
HELCOM BSAP 
IA 
IBRD 
ICES 
IGO 
IMO 
JOSEFIN 
MRS 
NC 
NCM 
ND 
NDEP 
NDPHS 

NDPTL 
NGO 
NIB 
NordFrosk 
Nordic OCTA 
NORDREGIO 
PSSA 
ROCTA 
SMEs 

ANNEX 6 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Automatic Identification System 
An Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region 
Baltic Metropolises Innovation Strategy Project 
Baltic Sea Innovation Network Centres 
Baltic Sea under Baltic Sea Region Energy Cooperation 
Baltic Development Forum 
Baltic Energy Market and Interconnection Plan 
BONUS-169 Joint Baltic Sea Research Programme 
BONUS  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Science  –  Network  of  Funding 
Agencies 
Baltic Sea Region 
Capacity  Building  Programme  on  Trans-National  Cluster 
and Innovation Systems in the Baltic Sea Region) 
Task Force on Organised Crime in the Baltic Sea Region 
Council of the Baltic Sea States 
Community information 
European 
Eastern BSR 
European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation 
European Investment Bank 
European Maritime Safety Agency 
EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 
Gulf of Finland Reporting System 
Helsinki Commision 
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan 
Impact Assessment 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
Intergovernmental Organization 
International Maritime Organization 
Joint SME Finance for Innovation) 
Mandatory Reporting Systems 
Nordic Council 
Nordic Council of Ministers 
Northern Dimension 
ND Northern Environmental Partnership 
Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social 
Well Being 
Northern Dimension Partnership on Transport and Logistics 
Non-Governmental Organization 
Nordic Investment Bank 
Nordic research board 
Nordic Organised Crime Threat Assessment 
Nordic Centre for Spatial Development 
particularly sensitive sea area 
Russian OCTA 
Small and Medium Enterprises 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
SPIN 

TEKES 
TEN 
VASAB 
VINNOVA 
VTS 
W-BSR 
WGCB 

Sustainable  Production  through  Innovation  in  Small  and 
Medium sized Enterprises 
Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation 
Trans European Network 
Vision and Strategies around the Baltic Sea 
Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems 
Vessel Traffic 
Western BSR 
CBSS Working Group on Customs Cooperation and Border 
Crossing Aspects 

EN 

70 

   EN