The final straight line for the Baltic Sea Strategy by Esko Antola

The European Commission has issued its Draft Action Plan for the Baltic Sea Strategy. The UBC and its family of cities were actively involved in the stakeholder process during the fall of 2008.

The organization itself delivered its opinion to the Commission after an internal consultation process. Most of its internal commissions issued their own statements and comments. The UBC and its Commissions also took part in drafting of collective position papers of groups of stakeholders in the region. Finally, individual member cities drafted their opinions and other documents. The UBC family members can identify their views and proposals in the Draft Action Plan. The impact is seen throughout the document. In many parts of the text, however, the Draft Action Plan is rather general and less focused. Action Plan follows the outline draft that the Commission prepared in early stages of the process. This outline was followed also in the two main stakeholder conferences in Stockholm and Rostock.

The Christmas Tree?

There are four headlines: to make the BSR environmentally sustainable, to make it a prosperous place, to make the BSR an accessible and attractive and to make is safe and secure, divided into three elements. Firstly, the hotspots are identified, then actions are defined and thirdly, flagship projects are outlined. Some of the actions and flagships are already in progress or at least in the pipeline to be adopted. In many ways the document is a Christmas Tree: a list of good ideas and promises but much less ideas of implementation. The draft names hotspots, 51 actions and over 70 flagship proposals. Among these the UBC and its members can identify many of their own preferences.

The Baltic Sea Strategy and the Action Plan are drafted in most challenging times. The global financial crisis has and shall have deep-going effects on the region. Neither stakeholders contributing to the strategy nor the drafters in the Commission were able to echo the dramatic change in the economic and political environment. During the months of preparation the BSR has deteriorated from one of the fastest growing and wealthiest regions in Europe into a crisis area. The Strategy drafters are not to be blamed of not seeing the change. It took place during the drafting period. The Action Plan takes a note of the crisis by saying: "Nonetheless, it is essential that the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region allows the partners in the region to take a longer perspective, recognising that when this crisis has passed the regions that have best prepared will be those best equipped to take advantage of the new op-portunities."This sentence invites the reader to make a conclusion that when the crisis is over, things return to normal. Taking into consideration the depth of the economic turmoil of the launching time of the strategy one should expect changes and structural revolutions that set a completely new economicand political frameworkforany BalticSea Strategy. It is hard to define what "regions that have best prepared" means in the current situation.

Strategy for the crisis

The fundamental challenge is that the BSR has to face the future from a perspective of a declining economic growth, which means dramatic changes for some countries of the region indeed. The inputs to the strategy have been made, however, from a perspective of continuous economic growth. Growth figures in the region have been upwards the last ten years but by the time of the presenting of the strategy the figures are pointing down. This must be noted in the strategy documents to make them relevant and legitimate in the eyes of the people in the region.

On 5 and 6 February 2009, the 2nd Stakeholder Conference was held in Rostock-Warnemünde with approximately 370 participants from 17 countries in Europe to discuss the EU-Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.

Not only the economic perspectives of the region challenge the strategy documents. The political environment is changing as well. The economic crisis has already created political disturbances and upheavals in the region. It has also changed the political atmosphere in the EU. Although "removing the single market barriers" remains as a legitimate target, its realization in current circumstances is not very realistic. Quite on the contrary, rise of protectionism is the mood and perhaps for many years to come. The added value of the strategy is at stake unless it is adjusted to meet the realities of the time when it is launched.

Governance is still the weakest link

Seeing the strategy from the UBC perspective the future of public economies is the key issue. The UBC stated in its contribution to the Commission: "Cities constitute the public authority closest to the citizens and their everyday life. Knowing that a mounting challenge of the European Union is to take the Union closer to its citizens, the cities can perform a vital link. Understanding cities and urban areas as the foundation of the Baltic Sea governance would help to establish a link between the Union and its citizens".

Cities and city decision-makers are already confronted by the economic crises. Demands for public services and safety nets under the conditions of rapidly increasing unemployment put challenges that demand radical modifications in existing policies. It would be incorrect to demand rewriting the Strategy as such. It includes many elements that are not dependent directly on the economic crisis. Environmental concerns do not disappear in crisis. But what is needed is a reflection of the existing realities. Strategy drafters are correct in pointing to the need to outline visions on a longer perspective. But short perspective considerations dominate the political agenda and the implementation of the strategy.

The governance part of the Action plan is still in its early draft. It is also the weakest link of the Action Plan from the point of view of the Baltic Sea actors. Many of them, like the UBC, strongly urged that the strategy must be based on the bottom-up approach. Only an active involvement of the actors in the regions can ensure its legitimacy and acceptance and commitment in the region.

In its opinion to the Commission the UBC stressed the governance dimension. The opinion reads: "The strategy should focus on providing the region with new governance that helps the region to meet its challenges and aspirations. The main focus of this statement is to contribute to that end and to point out avenues that should be explored by the Strategy and eventual Action Plan. The Strategy must bring added value to what already is accomplished in the region in order to be relevant both for the European Union and for the region."The UBC in its contribution to the Commission strongly urged the bottom-up approach:"The intensity and encouraging experiences of cooperation between the cities strongly emphasize the relevance of the bottom-up approach. The UBC, therefore, strongly urges the Commission that the bottom up dimension must be instituted and supported in the strategy. The success of strategy is based on the input and involvement of the stakeholders in the region in early stages of preparation as well, and in particular, in implementation of the strategy."

The first drafts on governance of the strategy ignore this approach. The first versions indicate that the non-state actors in the region shall occupy mainly the role of implementation. Ideas floating point to a governance where the Council of Ministers in various combinations shall draw the political framework for the strategy while the Commission through still very unclear internal structures shall produce the policy decisions and coordination. It is very difficult to see how the bottom-up procedure could be implied. If the role of regional actors is in implementation the governance follows more a top-down method.

Towards the final

Drafting the strategy and the Action Plan is in the final stretch. In its Draft Action Plan the Commission declares that it wants to keep the process open: "the plan may be revised and extended by the Member States and stakeholders". The wording is an invitation for further comments and proposals. The UBC and its Members should seize the opportunity. But the time to contribute to the draft is limited indeed. During the coming weeks the drafts shall be circulated in various Commission's DGs and the adoption of the documents is due to take place on 19 June 2009.

The incoming Swedish Presidency has indicated that the strategy shall be among the top priorities. Launching of the strategy shall take place in challenging times. The economic and political environment shall not been favorable as such. But the Swedish Presidency takes place in a period of changes inside the Union. The new Parliament and consequently the new Commission shall still be in a period of settling down and building their agenda. This does not provide the most favorable conditions for the final steps of the adaptation of the strategy.