Jari Nahkanen Ver 2 New

Suggestions of speaking pointsfor Jari Nahkanen• I want to start by thanking Mr Jörgen Petterson, President of the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference, and our host Ms Gun-Mari Lindholm for invitingme to your annual event.• It is a pleasure and a privilege to address an audience that has made such animportant contribution to improving cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region forso many years.• I am happy to address you on the topic that we need more action. Becausewe do. We all know that the Baltic Sea is in a bad condition. We have torealise that we have made progress over the years by joining efforts andhaving a joint framework, such as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.But we need more. We need more co-operation in the Baltic Sea in thefuture. Not less.• The Baltic Sea Commission is one of the six geographical commissions of theConference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, an interest organisation andthink-tank with 160 regions as members across Europe. In the Baltic Sea weare made up of 19 regional authorities from around the Baltic Sea.• I am proud to say that in our core competences, cohesion policy, maritimeaffairs and transport, we are seen as one of the main influencers in theBrussels Arena. Being a political network we have the last year had meetingswith Commissioner Juncker on the Future of Europe, we are in constantdialogue with DG Regio concerning regional development, DG Moveconcerning sustainable transport connections and on the topic of a healthyBaltic Sea, our brussels based secretariat works on a daily basis with DG Mareand DG Climate.• In May and June this summer, The European Commission published itslegislative proposal for the EU budget for the post-2020 period. Even if allthe countries in the Baltic Sea Region are not part of the EU, the policy andtools for implantation matters for the cooperation in the Baltic Sea.• The Action Plan of The EU Strategy of the Baltic Sea Region is also up forrevision this coming year. The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea puts a cleanBaltic sea at its core. The Maritime Working Group of the Baltic SeaCommission is actively involved in the revision.• Next week, I will be in Brussels and together with members of the EuropeanParliament, we will discuss with representatives of the EU institutions,researchers and stakeholders about the State of the Baltic Sea and theprogress achieved and still remained.• The many flagships active within the Policy Area of Hazard in the Baltic Seawill be presented and we will jointly discuss if the framework of the Baltic SeaStrategy has pushed progress. My main messages will be the same in theEuropean Parliament next week as they are here today.-> We need more action.-> We need to ensure we have the sufficient funds for implementation.-> We need to ensure that we have a governance system that allows differentpriorities in different parts of the Baltic Sea.• If we want to build a strong European Cooperation and European Union, ifwe want the environmental policies to bring value - emphasis must be puton implementation. Much of the action we have heard about here todayfrom previous speakers are taken by actors on local and regional level andwe need to safeguard that the framework of policy and instruments supportthis.• The negotiations that start now about the next programme period in the EUare not only about numbers in a budget. They are about the precondition foractors to get involved. And the tools and funds on local and regional level areproposed to decrease.***• The subsidiarity principle states that decisions and priorities should betaken as close as possible to the citizens. This enables different prioritiesin the north of the Baltic Sea compared to the south. I will give you anexample on what this mean in a regional political aspect.• In the northern parts of the Baltic Sea, where I come from, we have toconstantly remind ourselves that much of what we place in Arctic policy isrelevant and interconnected with Baltic Policy. This is fundamental whenwe talk and make proposals about the climate change and environmentalissues, the Baltic is part of the Arctic and also the Baltic sea is affected byglobal warming.One discussion in the arctic parts of the Baltic sea we have, is the problem of socalled black carbon or the fine particles of soot. It causes ice melting andwarming of the Arctic. Black carbon emissions are estimated to be worse thangreenhouse gases. Black carbon means fine particles that are generated byincomplete combustion, for example in traffic and old-fashioned power plants.Reducing the use and emissions of black carbon is not only an environmentalissue but also a health issue. The reduction of black carbon emissions in theBaltic sea region is realistic through cross-border cooperation. A Baltic Interregprogramme will not give emphasis on this as the cross-border programmes hasbeen able to do.When the commission proposes to merge the maritime cross-borderprogrammes, in an eagerness of more effective administration, theyloose the essence of effective governance.• And here is a problem: For the first time ever in an EU Budget proposal, theamount of funds that is directly managed by the European Commission, isbigger than the amount that will be managed by the Member States andRegions. The mechanisms and also the political priority setting is beingcentralised to either capitals or Brussels. This is not the right direction if wewant functional implementation.• New political priorities and Britains exit sharply reduce the EU finances. Thiscombination puts us in the place that that the EU is expected to do more, butwith less funds.• The EU Commission has not had an easy task to come up with a proposal.Instead of making real priorities they have used a cheese-slicer – meaningthat also the Interreg (today only 2,75 % of the Cohesion Policy Fund) hasbeen reduced in both percentage and actual numbers.• The CPMR Baltic Sea Commission is highly concerned that the Commissionhas proposed to reduce the budget for Interreg, despite its added-value forfostering cooperation across Europe. There is a risk that Interreg will not beable to deliver due to very limited financial resources. We are calling for astrong and well-resourced European Territorial Cooperation.• We are also deeply concerned that the new architecture for maritimecooperation proposed by the Commission, diminishes the programmes thatare close to local and regional actors. We oppose the scenario to integrateInterreg maritime cross-border programmes into transnationalprogrammes, which means getting rid of the South Baltic, Central Baltic andBotnia-Atlantica programmes, which have brought tangible results.• I thank you again for inviting me. I believe politicians on national, regionaland local level must engage even more in the discussions on what future EUwe want. I want more. The action is needed for the Baltic Sea, as well as forour competiveness and connectiveness.• I want to conclude this intervention by saying that the Baltic SeaCommission is happy to continue a dialogue with the Baltic SeaParliamentary Conference on how we can push for more cooperation andAction for a clean and healthy Baltic Sea. ////FINISH////PANEL DEBATE comments, EXAMPLE:I am amased of the much action that today is funded by Interreg. Interreg is crucial.For example, th BLASTIC project – one of the flagships of the Baltic Sea Strategy. It aims toreduce plastic waste and hence, the inflow of hazardous substances into the Baltic Sea.A central goal of the project is to compile a list of pathways and sources as well asrecommendations for cost-effective measures to combat marine litter in e.g. the waste andwater sector on a municipal level.The results will contribute to a checklist on best practices to prevent marine litter to be usedby the municipal authorities.During the year 2017, BLASTIC's foremost activities has been on raising awarness fot hegeneral cause. To educate a younger audience, a booklet intended to be used in schools andkindergartens was published and was translated to all partner country languages.This project will be presented by Pärnu and Stockholm in the European Parliament nextweek.PANEL DEBATE comments, number 1On Save the Baltic Sea for realAs I referred to next week’s event in Brussels, it is called Save the Baltic Sea for real. Theinformal Baltic Sea group in the European Parliament, the EUSBSR, Seas, Rivers, Islands andCostal Areas, SEARICA, and the Baltic Sea Commission of the CPMR will organise an event inthe European Parliament on 5th of September 2018. The idea is to discuss about hazardoussubstances such as chemical and plastics and the threats they pose in the Baltic Sea region.PANEL DEBATE comments, number 1On the UN Sustainability GoalsIt is highly accepted that the main implementation of the Sustainability Goalshappen on local and regional level. When we talk place based innovation, wetalk about innovation on clean tech, circular economy, e-services for a betterfunctioning health system etc. Innovation and sustainability goes hand in hand.In the Baltic Sea Commission we have initiated a close cooperation withEuroregion Baltic and Council of the Baltic States.PANEL DEBATE comments, number 2EU membership fee and profits of EU membershipThe single European market is the most important market for countries like Finland andSweden. The European Union is also the most important arena for foreign policy co-operation too. EU is a good investment which gives a fair return on investment too invarious ways. In the context of this negotiations actors and politicians inside of governmentand outside MUST take the opportunity to engage in this discussions and further developour cooperation. If our medial debate only is about the membership fee than the citizens ofour countries loose out of the discussion on what we need the EU and enhancedcooperation for. I encourage you to be part of this discussions.PANEL DEBATE comments, number 3About nationalists’ trends in EU at the momentThe unity of the EU is in a test. Populist right-wing parties rise in different countries andoffer easy solutions to complex problems. Alternative medias offer alternative truths andpeople without media literacy are in trouble. Migration, security and defence are some ofthe areas that we discuss needs to be managed more together. We need to increase co-operation of national emergency supply agencies that ensures the security of supply ofvarious issues for the functioning of the society under all circumstances. The forest fires inSweden and Finland demanded help not only from countries in our closest neighbourhoodbut from all over Europe. Cooperation makes us stronger and more resilient.PANEL DEBATE comments, number 4About the possibility of working together at different levelsToday, more than ever we need cooperation and cohesion in the Baltic Sea Region and inEurope. For example, in the North Sweden and Finland border regions, we should do moreto save natural salmon. In the Finnish national Fishing strategy, we have decided to shiftfocus from planting fish to maintaining and restoring the natural reproductive cycle.PANEL DEBATE comments, number 5About connection Baltic to arctic and low carbon economyOur industry and commerce is heavily dependent on good logistical connections both in themotorways of sea and land and also in air. Therefore, fostering the development ofconnectivity and EU’s single market plays a central role in our work. Even though ourindustry is vital importance for our possibilities to live here, it is also consuming a lot ofenergy and resources. We live in the rural region close to nature and we are constantlydeveloping ways to diminish the environmental load of the industry. Understanding thevulnerable arctic environment contributes to the actions of saving the see for example withcircular economy solutions. We welcome EU commission’s targets to reduce co2 emissionsof transportation and energy.