It's evidently Strategy time on the Tales from the Borderlands blog, as today the Baltic Sea takes centre stage. The Finns, in their usual quiet, effective way, put together the Baltic Sea Action Summit (http://www.bsas.fi/) which took place last Wednesday. The guest list was truly impressive, with at least 3 Presidents, 5 Prime Ministers (including Putin), not to mention the Swedish King, accompanied by his environment minister.
Also taking part was the new European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Johannes Hahn. I can't help thinking that President Barroso should really have been there as well. Yes, there is the very good explanation that 10 February was the first day of work for the new Commission, but - if the event had been covering the south of Europe, do we still think Barroso would not have been present?
On content, there were strong messages from all participants, demonstrating a genuine commitment to cleaning up the Baltic. The Border-crosser is not often considered an idealist, so here's hoping that my feeling - that a lot of what was said went further than is normally the case - is accurate. There will be a need to link up many of the individual commitments to the EU's Baltic Sea Strategy, and also to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, but that looks doable.
The one off-note of the day came from Putin, who delivered a longish lecture about how wonderful the Nordstream gas pipeline is going to be for the Baltic environment. He was a little short on proof for backing that up, unsurprisingly, but his very presence was still a positive signal, and he had a whole series of bilateral meetings in the margins which can only have helped as well.
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Danube Strategy days
The Border-crosser has been in Ulm for the launch of the consultation phase of the EU's new, all-singing, all-dancing Danube Strategy. At least you would think it was going to be all-singing, all-dancing, when you heard some of the speeches. Most of them included wishlists that were significantly longer than seems sensible and a reality check will need to be introduced at some point. A serious discussion on what can actually be done, and when, will need to happen at some point. The Serbian Deputy Prime Minister, Bozidar Djelic, made this point better than most of the Member State politicians.
Nevertheless, the Danube is an interesting case for such a macro-regional strategy. It is not the most obvious choice for such a strategy (if you had asked me a year or so ago which region would follow the Baltic, I would have guessed the Alps, or maybe the North Sea). It does not have a great history of co-operation, barring very specific examples like the Danube Commission on navigation. Certainly, it cannot offer anything to compare with the multiplicity of networks which exist in the Baltic.
However, it is not an inherently hopeless case, like the Union for the Mediterranean (more on this in a future post.) The effective lobbying at national and regional level which led the European Council to ask for a Danube Strategy last June has built up much good will and commitment. Getting 450 people to Ulm in the middle of the German winter certainly points to enthusiasm, if nothing else. Current EU co-operation programmes in the region have improved a lot compared to the past, and there is a lot of interesting, if as yet rather unco-ordinated, work going on.
Next up for the Danube is the Budapest Summit at the end of February, where prime ministers are going to turn up, wax lyrical about the river, and give an added political boost to the Strategy's preparations. Should be fun.
Nevertheless, the Danube is an interesting case for such a macro-regional strategy. It is not the most obvious choice for such a strategy (if you had asked me a year or so ago which region would follow the Baltic, I would have guessed the Alps, or maybe the North Sea). It does not have a great history of co-operation, barring very specific examples like the Danube Commission on navigation. Certainly, it cannot offer anything to compare with the multiplicity of networks which exist in the Baltic.
However, it is not an inherently hopeless case, like the Union for the Mediterranean (more on this in a future post.) The effective lobbying at national and regional level which led the European Council to ask for a Danube Strategy last June has built up much good will and commitment. Getting 450 people to Ulm in the middle of the German winter certainly points to enthusiasm, if nothing else. Current EU co-operation programmes in the region have improved a lot compared to the past, and there is a lot of interesting, if as yet rather unco-ordinated, work going on.
Next up for the Danube is the Budapest Summit at the end of February, where prime ministers are going to turn up, wax lyrical about the river, and give an added political boost to the Strategy's preparations. Should be fun.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
A Baltic Strategy
The Commission will today publish its Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region which is aimed at providing the region with a policy framework delivering better results for the EU citizen.
Why the Baltic? Well, on one level it's an obvious choice. The institutional system in the region is packed with international and interregional organisations, like the Nordic Council, the CBSS, HELCOM, the BSSSC, the UBC, the BEAC and a whole host of other acronyms. Indeed, you might ask, if the Baltic is so good at being organised across national borders, why does it need a strategy at all?
The answer is twofold. Firstly, having so many organisations in one region can be a disadvantage when it comes to agreeing on actual action. All these organisations have slightly different focuses, subtly different priorities. Getting them all pulling in the same direction at the same time is none too easy.
The second issue is often a consequence of the first. Since it is difficult to get everyone to agree on a joint approach, it is all too common that the discussions do not lead to sufficient action on the ground. And this is what has been seen in the Baltic. For all the talk and broad, political agreement, the environmental state of the Baltic Sea itself keeps worsening, the transport links do not improve sufficiently quickly, and economic development is still divergent.
The Baltic Sea Strategy offers the chance to better co-ordinate what is already in place and to guide future co-operation work more effectively - in short, to provide the overall framework into which actions and projects can be fitted and organised coherently.
Boiled down to these basics, it's a remarkably straightforward and sensible idea. The uncharitable might ask why it took so long to get around to it, but the role of the Commission in the process provides the response to that. The Member States were unable to come up with this together and needed the Commission as an impartial player to take the lead role in co-ordinating the work. In this, it can be seen as an expansion of the role the Commission often plays in the cross-border programmes in the region. And it could be the start of something much bigger - other regions in Europe are watching with much interest.
Why the Baltic? Well, on one level it's an obvious choice. The institutional system in the region is packed with international and interregional organisations, like the Nordic Council, the CBSS, HELCOM, the BSSSC, the UBC, the BEAC and a whole host of other acronyms. Indeed, you might ask, if the Baltic is so good at being organised across national borders, why does it need a strategy at all?
The answer is twofold. Firstly, having so many organisations in one region can be a disadvantage when it comes to agreeing on actual action. All these organisations have slightly different focuses, subtly different priorities. Getting them all pulling in the same direction at the same time is none too easy.
The second issue is often a consequence of the first. Since it is difficult to get everyone to agree on a joint approach, it is all too common that the discussions do not lead to sufficient action on the ground. And this is what has been seen in the Baltic. For all the talk and broad, political agreement, the environmental state of the Baltic Sea itself keeps worsening, the transport links do not improve sufficiently quickly, and economic development is still divergent.
The Baltic Sea Strategy offers the chance to better co-ordinate what is already in place and to guide future co-operation work more effectively - in short, to provide the overall framework into which actions and projects can be fitted and organised coherently.
Boiled down to these basics, it's a remarkably straightforward and sensible idea. The uncharitable might ask why it took so long to get around to it, but the role of the Commission in the process provides the response to that. The Member States were unable to come up with this together and needed the Commission as an impartial player to take the lead role in co-ordinating the work. In this, it can be seen as an expansion of the role the Commission often plays in the cross-border programmes in the region. And it could be the start of something much bigger - other regions in Europe are watching with much interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)