Policy Analysis

Policy Analysis – Baltic Sea Region Governments’statements regarding the implementation of the27th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference ResolutionAuthor:Dr. Tobias Etzold Berlin, 15 August 2019 The assessment and opinions expressed in this policy analysis are those of the author and neither necessarily reflectthe official opinion of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference and its institutions. Author’s contact details:etzold_tobias@hotmail.com11. IntroductionOn 26-28 August 2018 elected legislators from the Baltic Sea Region states1 assembled inMariehamn, Åland, and adopted the 27th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) Resolution.In addition to a preamble the Resolution emphasises the general cooperation in the Baltic Searegion and four specific priority areas for action:1) A Healthy Baltic Sea;2) Sustainable Energy; Smart energy distribution platforms,3) Migration and Integration;4) Economic development and growth.As a follow up to the 27th BSPC and in preparation of the 28th BSPC in Oslo, Norway, on 26-28August 2019 the BSPC General Secretariat asked the BSPC delegations to request their respectivegovernments to submit a statement regarding the implementation of the 27th BSPC Resolution.The BSPC General Secretariat commissioned Dr. Tobias Etzold to evaluate and analyse thestatements submitted by the respective governmental institutions of the Baltic Sea Region states.2. Content of this analysis and basic dataThis analysis includes:- an overall quantitative assessment of the governments’ statements;- a qualitative analysis regarding the governments’ statements regarding the more generalsection on regional cooperation as well as the four priority areas;- and an overall assessment highlighting shortcomings and identifying recommendationsfor the future.Basic data:- the 27th BSPC Resolution,- written statements by the respective governmental bodies received by July 2019.1 Baltic Assembly, Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, Denmark, Estonia, European Parliament, Faroe Islands, FederalRepublic of Germany, Finland, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Iceland, Kaliningrad Region, KarelianRepublic, Latvia, Leningrad Region, Lithuania, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Nordic Council, Norway, Poland,Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, State Duma of the Federal Assemblyof the Russian Federation, City of St. Petersburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Sweden, Åland Islands.23. Quantitative Overview3.1. Overall Response RateTwenty-five delegations from member states’ parliaments (eleven national and elevensubnational/autonomous parliaments) and parliamentary institutions (three) adopted the 27thBSPC Conference Resolution. Twelve governmental counterparts of the twenty-two signatories,excluding the three parliamentary institutions, submitted statements to the BSPC StandingCommittee regarding the implementation of the Resolution.23.2. Overall Response VarietyThe twelve submitted statements in reaction to the 27th BSPC Resolution vary considerablyconcerning thematic depth, length and structure. Some statements, i.e. those from the FederalRepublic of Germany, Latvia, Russia and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, portray on 10 - 20 pages indetail and some even for nearly each paragraph of the Resolution related activities of respectivegovernments. Others, such as the Åland Islands, Norway and Sweden, keep it rather limited to ageneral overview of two-six pages touching upon only a few topics of the Resolution. Severalgovernments submitted one coherent statement, composed by one Ministry i.e. Ministry ofForeign Affairs, others submitted a compilation of statements issued by various departments.The level of comprehensives of a submitted statement by itself does not allow a direct inferenceto the overall activities of a respective government in the priority areas of the Resolution. Relyingonly on the statements therefore does not constitute a reliable data source for a proper statisticalanalysis. However, our qualitative analysis in the following section does highlight some generalfindings and shortcomings in the submitted statements. While the governments in their responseslist both national and transnational initiatives and actions, there still is a focus on the former.Nonetheless, the number of reports on transnational activities seems to have increased comparedto previous years. The analysis concentrates on transnational activities as well as the linksbetween both but also provides several examples for national provisions where appropriate.4. Qualitative AnalysisThe 27th BSPC Resolution contains several parts. The preamble covers various broader issuesregarding regional developments. Most importantly, it welcomes the resumption of the Councilof the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) High Level Meeting under the Swedish Presidency resulting in theStockholm Declaration and calls for a resumption of the Baltic Sea States Summits to “foster thedialogue, strengthen cooperation and manifesting peace”. It also expresses its support for thevision of the CBSS Vision Group, “that the Baltic Sea Region shall become a role model ofecological, economic, social and security standards and policies, with a vibrant regional civilsociety” and its willingness to take into account the report of the Vision Group in furtherdiscussions on future developments in the BSR. In their statements, several governments hailedthe report as an important contribution to the review and reform process of the CBSS which theyoverall welcome in order to enhance the flexibility and effectivity of the Council. Other2 Estonia, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Latvia, Lithuania,Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the Åland Islands. The government of the RussianFederation submitted one statement which again seems to be written on behalf of all Russian member delegations.3provisions include the continued need for political exchange among young people and for aBaltic Sea Parliamentary Youth Forum.The preamble is followed by a more general chapter on “Cooperation in the Region” (paragraphs1-6), covering various areas and issues of cooperation, calling for example for intensifying theinteraction between the Northern Dimension policy and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea andthe Russian Strategy of social and economic development of the North-West federal district(paragraph 1). More specific issues are subsequently subsumed in four thematic sections:- “Vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea” (paragraphs (7-16),- “Sustainable Energy, Smart energy distribution platforms” (paragraph 17),- “Migration and Integration” (paragraphs 18-24),- “Economic development and growth in the Baltic Sea region” (paragraphs 25-28).The last paragraph (29) expresses gratitude to the Parliament of Norway as the host of the 28thBSPC Conference on 25-27 August 2019.With 28 paragraphs the 27th Resolution is considerably shorter than previous ones (2017: 41paragraphs and 2016: 61 paragraphs). This is also reflected in the governments’ statements thaton average are shorter than in previous years. Most themes addressed in the 2018 Resolutiondiffer from those in the previous Resolution giving proof of the variety and diversity of regionaldevelopments and issues of regional cooperation.4.1. “Cooperation in the Region”All governments address at least several of the opening chapter’s six paragraphs. Most of theiranswers are fairly broad, mainly describing regional institutions and their activities as well asprogrammes and projects the respective countries participate in. In several cases (especiallyparagraphs 1-2), they express the governments’ general support for institutions, projects andprogrammes as well as the points made in the Resolution rather than evaluating and/orproposing concrete national and/or regional measures.Addressing paragraph 1 on intensifying the interaction between the Northern Dimension and theEU and Russia regional strategies, Lithuania expresses its general support for cooperation andcoherence between ND, EUSBSR and CBSS in areas of mutual interest. At the same time thegovernment clarifies that it opposes “the inclusion of the Russian Strategy in the ND, EUSBSR,CBSS and other relevant regional documents on cooperation since 2012” and cooperation withthe Russian strategy. The only concrete example for the suggested interaction is Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’s listed plan to hold the Baltic Sea Tourism Forum in Pskov (Northwest Russia) inautumn 2019 under the auspices of the Tourism Association Mecklenburg-Vorpommern incooperation with the state Ministry of Economy, Labour and Health in its capacity as coordinatorof the EUSBSR policy area Tourism. Other governments do not make any specific proposals onthis issue.Also paragraph 2 (extending the scope of transnational programmes covering the whole BalticSea area) does not receive much attention in concrete terms. Nonetheless, Hamburg reports thata resolution on European territorial cooperation of the German Conference of the Ministers of theLänder dealing with European Affairs supported linking the macro-regional strategies, e.g. EUSBSR,with the strategic orientation of the Interreg programmes. Hamburg contributed as a co-rapporteur. As the latter are regarded as important pillars in supporting the implementation of4the macro-regional strategies, the conference recommended not to curtail the Interreg programareas with regard to the macro-regional strategies and argued against funding cuts as proposed bythe European Commission. They should rather continue in their present form and even beextended to match the macro-regions in order to enable better interconnection. The Swedishgovernment refers to the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme that invites Russianorganisations as project partners and Belarussian organisations as associated partners. For thispurpose, a Financing Agreement has been put in place. Lithuania refers to a new project“Strengthening of the police transnational cooperation in the BSR” implemented since January2018 by the law enforcement institutions of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland, funded by theEU Internal Security Fund Police Instrument.Referring to youth cooperation (paragraph 4) the autonomous Government of Åland expressesits support for the political exchange among young people in all areas of society. In particular itstresses the ReGeneration 2030 movement as a multinational forum bringing together youngpeople from around the Baltic Sea. In cooperation with the CBSS and the Nordic Council ofMinisters, the first ReGeneration 2030 Summit was held on Åland in summer 2018 followed by thesecond in August 2019 themed “Changing Climate – Changing Lifestyles”. Also othergovernments (e.g. Estonia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) confirm their support for youthexchange and an active participation of the youth in regional cooperation. Hamburg reports thatyoung people in Hamburg have access to the appropriate advisory framework when planningconcrete youth exchange projects. The German federal government confirms its financialcommitment to the Baltic Sea Youth Dialogue (BSYD) to the amount of EUR 50,000/year.Several governments address in detail paragraph 5 of the Resolution (labour and employment),referring both to the Baltic Sea Labour Forum and the first meeting of ministers of labour inBerlin in June 2017 (Russia, Latvia, German federal government) as well as national measures andreforms. The Russian Federal Service of Labour and Employment (Rostrud) and the StateEmployment Agency of Latvia expressed their readiness to participate in the project “Baltic SeaLabour Forum for Sustainable Working Life”. The overarching aim of the project is to improveworking life conditions and life-long learning provisions, systems and policies for the elderly inorder to promote active ageing and employability. The project receives funding from theEuropean Social Fund (ESF). Hamburg state agencies support training exchanges using ESF andfederal state funding, for example in the form of the ESF project “Working practice for all”,funding stays abroad for trainees, education managers and skilled workers. Norway works activelywith BSR countries to realize the objectives of equal opportunities and equal access to the labourmarket as well as to achieve good and fair working conditions, social security and inclusion.Under the EEA and Norway Grants scheme, it funds projects in several Baltic Sea countriespromoting economic and social cohesion and development as well as decent work conditions andthe cooperation between social partners. In Finland new legislation for vocational education andtraining came into effect in 2018, aiming at improving the status of vocational training in society.The focus of this most extensive reform of education legislation in 20 years is on the fundingsystem, steering and structures of the upper secondary vocational education providers. TheLatvian Ministry of Welfare has created a Training Commission responsible for defining thetraining fields and approving training programmes for the unemployed. The Latvian StateEmployment Agency provides apart from job search assistance also career guidance to help theunemployed develop basic skills and competencies and choose the appropriate training. InGermany the Skills Development Opportunity Act came into effect on 1 January 2019. It enablesemployees to gain access to support for further training in case their work is to be replaced bytechnology, they are otherwise threatened by structural change or they seek further training in aprofession with a shortage of workers. The Act also applies to elder employees (see below).Hamburg states its support for part-time training, rendering it easier for young single mothers toobtain professional qualifications.5Reacting to paragraph 6 (challenges of an ageing population, social cohesion and sustainabledevelopment), several governments list national provisions. Estonia refers to its WelfareDevelopment Plan 2016-23 aiming at supporting the employment of elder people as well as toachieve a longer life expectancy. Hamburg has set up an information centre to provide employeesand employers with advice on creating a good working environment keeping people inemployment. The Polish government lists several measures within the framework of its “SocialPolicy for Older People 2030. Safety. Participation. Solidarity” such as shaping a positiveperception of old age in society, creating conditions enabling the use of the potential of olderpeople as active participants of economic life and the labour market, adapted to theirpsychophysical abilities and family situation, and creating conditions for solidarity andintergenerational integration. The Latvian government launched an ESF co-funded project toretain the ability to work and to encourage employment of older workers (50+), including forexample vocational guidance support and upskilling. Furthermore a pilot project “Support toSocial Enterprise” has been initiated, aiming at providing additional support for disadvantagedunemployed persons as well as people with disabilities, including older workers. To support theimprovement of the society’s quality of life and promote employment for groups at risk of socialexclusion through the creation of an economic environment that supports social enterprises, theLatvian Parliament adopted the Social Enterprise Law that came into force in April 2018.Mecklenburg-Vorpommern maintains a multilingual training database in which companies as wellas employees find easier access to information on vocational education measures.4.2. “Vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea”All twelve responding governments address at least several paragraphs in this chapter andprovide examples for national as well as transnational measures, projects and initiatives thecountries participate in. Partly, both dimensions are interlinked with each other, i.e. nationalmeasures to implement regional and international schemes such as the Baltic Sea Action Plan(BSAP), the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the UN 2030 sustainability goals. In thiscontext, HELCOM and the BSAP are mentioned frequently. Governments express their supportand commitment towards HELCOM as well as the implementation and updating of the BSAP.Concerning the Implementation Strategy for the sustainable Blue Growth Agenda for the BSR(paragraph 8), the Swedish government refers to its newly adopted Maritime Strategy with anintegrated ecosystem approach structure. In this, a sustainable Blue Economy integratesenvironmental aspects, maritime development and attractive coastal and marine areas into onetruly sustainable blue growth strategy.Referring to a spatial master planning in the BSR (paragraph 9), Sweden took a lead role in theHELCOM/VASAB project to push a coordinated and harmonised planning of the Baltic Seaarea. Sweden has also initiated a national centre regarding climate adaptation supporting Swedishactors including marine spatial planning on climate adaptation. Sweden also cooperates withRussia on water resources and the marine environment and developed a bilateral project onmarine spatial planning in their adjacent sea areas. The Lithuanian government is in the processof elaborating a holistic General Plan of the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania., aiming atharmonizing activities related to business, agriculture, tourism, recreation, protection of theenvironment, cultural heritage and infrastructure. The plan is to be adopted by 2020.Referring to the BSPC’s demand to step up efforts at national and regional level to achieve theobjectives of the BSPC by 2021 (paragraph 10), the Finnish government ensures its commitmentto do so. It has launched a new Water Protection Programme 2019-21 to the amount of EUR 45million, including e.g. investments in innovative water protection methods in agriculture. Estonia6reports improvements in wastewater collection and treatment both in rural and urban areas. Theynow work as required by the EU and as agreed in HELCOM. Estonia has also improved itscapacity to clean up and monitor polluted sea by acquiring a new and modern patrol vessel withanti-pollution capabilities and a marine surveillance aircraft equipped with top-of-the linemonitoring and engineering systems.Addressing paragraph 12 (UN-Agenda 2030 goals), the Finnish government refers to its RiverBasin Management Plans 2016-21 containing 3500 measures and actions, most of them targetingnutrient loads, and currently being implemented. Hamburg developed a time table for achievingthe UN sustainable development goals over the next few years already in 2017. This shouldhappen in a very concrete way through local projects on environmental protection and urbandevelopment, economic and financial policy, participation and social cohesion as well aseducation and science. The Latvian government runs a “Programme of Measures to reach goodmarine environmental status (2016-20)”, including provisions for managing marine litter.Referring to paragraph 13 (Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development), Hamburgreports on current negotiations between the north German federal states and the federalgovernment on setting up a long-term funding programme for marine research from 2019. Thenewly founded German Alliance for Marine Research would aim at initiating and funding major inter-institutional collaborative research and infrastructure projects. Through the federal marineresearch programme MARE:N, the Federal Republic of Germany implemented an integratedapproach to marine research. Germany will host a kick-off conference for the Decade of OceanScience in Berlin in 2021, including representatives from science, society and politics. Norwaypresents its initiative to establish an international High-level Panel for a sustainable ocean economy that isto present a report with recommendations on the sustainable use of ocean resources, economicgrowth and development at the UN Ocean Conference in Portugal in 2020. In October 2019,Norway will host the Our Ocean Conference in Oslo, highlighting the importance of knowledge asthe basis of actions and policies to ensure sustainable future economic growth and contributingto the UN Decade.With regard to paragraph 15 (improve the quality of waste-water effluents and halt untreateddischarges), all vessels in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and also other German federal states, candispose their waste in appropriate reception facilities included already in the regular harbour fee.Germany treats wastewater almost universally and in conformity with all requirements of the EUDirective on Urban Wastewater Treatment. Latvia has introduced a new regulation on registration andmanagement of decentralised canalisation systems in 2017. The Swedish government promotedinvestments of about EUR 25 million in the installation of advanced wastewater treatmenttechniques in the next three years. On basis of a HELCOM recommendation, Lithuania alsoapproved stricter requirements for individual wastewater treatment plants, requiring treatment ofnitrogen and phosphorus, coming into force in November 2019.On paragraph 16 (action on plastic in the sea), several countries (e.g. Sweden, Latvia) expresstheir support and commitment to the newly adopted EU directive on single use plastics. Finlandpresents various national measures such as a national survey on the state and sources of marinelitter, a project on the development of best practices for the disposal of old pleasure boats andthe reduction of the use of plastic bags through a green deal and voluntary action by shops. TheEstonia government refers to its well-functioning deposit packaging system and to plans todevelop a common and joint deposit system in the entire BSR. Scientific research onmicroplastics in Latvia’s marine waters is carried out within the frame of the project“Improvement of knowledge in the field of marine environment 2017-22” funded by theEuropean Maritime and Fisheries fund (EMFF). The Swedish government took the decision toban cosmetic products that are rinsed off or spat out and contain plastic particles that have been7added to cleanse, exfoliate or polish (e.g. toothpaste, shower gels, shampoos). In May 2017, italso adopted a package of measures to combat plastic pollution amounting at more than SEK100 million per year until 2020, aiming at reducing the spread of microplastics and other plasticproducts as well as littering from plastic products and carrying out beach clean-ups. InMecklenburg-Vorpommern the amount of marine litter on the beaches is regularly recorded andevaluated in accordance with uniform specifications. Taking the issue up to the internationallevel, Norway is working towards an international agreement to combat marine litter. Towardsthis end, the country’s government has also launched a development aid programme amountingto USD 200 over the next four years.4.3. “Sustainable Energy, Smart energy distribution platforms”Ten out of twelve governments address the one paragraph (17) of the Resolution calling forenhancing and efficiently using cross-border transmission connections. Several governments referto the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) as an example for cross-bordercooperation in energy affairs with a focus on electricity. All Baltic Sea littoral states but Russia aswell as the European Commission participate in BEMIP. Norway is an observer.A few governments also mention existing and planned bilateral submarine power cables, such asNordBalt between Lithuania and Sweden, with a link to/from Latvia, ensuring closer integrationof the Baltic countries in the Nordic electricity market, and Harmony Link between Poland andLithuania. Due to frequent failures the latter has been repaired recently with several componentsreplaced in order to increase its interconnection reliability and to achieve a more effectiveoperation of the regional electricity market. Harmony Link is part of the synchronization processof the Baltic states’ electricity grids with the Continental European network which is to becompleted by 2025. The Latvian government reports the launch of construction works of thethird Latvia-Estonia power transmission interconnection in January 2019. Åland lists several seacable connections between the islands and Finland and Sweden respectively. During 2018 theFLEXe Project has continued aiming at making Åland a test platform for smart energy networks.The autonomous government of Åland is also involved in the company Flexen Ab Oy, founded in2018, aiming at commercializing efforts to create flexible energy solutions. Also here Åland, onwhich the project could have a major impact, acts as a test platform. With increased possibilitiesto transfer electricity in both directions between Sweden and Finland via Åland, the intention isto increase integration into the European energy network. A problem currently is, however, ahigh net fee on the Swedish side, limiting the effective use of the connection between Åland andSweden.Mecklenburg-Vorpommern highlights the project Kriegers Flak – Combined Grid Solution envisagingthe construction of a submarine cable connection between the existing German Baltic sea windfarm Baltic 2 and the future Kriegers Flak offshore wind farm in Denmark in order to increase theenergy exchange and the system stability between Germany and Denmark. The plannedconnection will be the start of an integrated electricity network in the Baltic Sea that could alsointegrate Sweden in the long term. In addition, through the Hansa PowerBridge Germany andSweden aim at connecting their electricity grids with each other via a new high-voltage directcurrent line by 2025/26. The state Ministry for Energy, Infrastructure and Digitization is apartner in the Interreg Baltic Sea Region projects Baltic LINes and Baltic InteGrid, contributing tothe expansion of cross-border transmission links and developing a strategy for integrating thedifferent sectors and a guideline for data exchange and transmission.The Russian government made some critical remarks towards Estonia and Latvia, stating thatthey artificially restrict the export of Russian electricity via several high-voltage lines through their8countries to the Scandinavian market NordPool since 2013. In the Russian view this contradictsthe content and spirit of this paragraph of the Resolution. The Russian Ministry for Energyconsiders the possibility of organizing an expert seminar on the development of the gas motorfuel market, including liquefied natural gas, under the auspices of the CBSS and/or the NorthernDimension.Overall, the government’s statements provide some interesting insights into unilateral, bilateraland multilateral projects in the field of energy with a focus on electricity. It however strikes thatgovernments make little explicit reference to electricity from renewable sources but seem to referto electricity in general leaving the sources open.4.4. “Migration and Integration”Ten out of twelve governments address in their statements at least a few of the paragraphs onmigration and integration and/or the general paragraph on migration (3). Most governments listnational/local measures, provisions and projects to improve the integration of migrants andrefugees, concerning for example health care, labour market, education, language training andinclusion in sports (the German federal government, Hamburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommernlist several projects aiming at integrating migrants through sports). Governments also giveaccount of several European measures and provisions on migration and asylum that they supportand help implement (paragraph 24).Of particular interest in this section are efforts to intensify the dialogue on migration andintegration among the Baltic Sea counties (paragraph 20). The Estonian government highlights alabour market inclusion initiative launched jointly with the Nordic Council of Ministers and theUNHCR to foster the development of a more coherent strategy to ensure successful labourinclusion of third country nationals. Every year Estonian governmental and academicstakeholders organise jointly with the Nordic Council of Ministers a conference to exchange bestpractices and latest research in the field of migration in the Nordic and Baltic countries. Finlandalso maintains a regular dialogue on migration with Russia. As to migration and securityperspectives in relevant other political agendas such as trade, labour rights and environmentalpreservation (paragraph 23), the Swedish government mentions the new transnational project“Competence building, assistance provision and prosecution of labour exploitation cases in theBaltic Sea Region (CAPE)”, involving both local and national authorities of BSR countries. Itaims at supporting authorities in combating and prosecuting forced labour and assisting victims.The German federal government expresses its support of an active civil society and governmentalexchange on migration in the BSR and lists several fora and workshops e.g. on (irregular)migration and soft security challenges (cross-border crime, trafficking) within the framework ofthe Baltic Sea Region Border Control Cooperation (BSRBCC) and the CBSS-funded project“Trafficking along Migration Routes” (TRAM). The interesting and useful BSPC proposal toinitiate a Baltic Sea-wide data basis on integration conditions and measures to improve the publicdiscussion on a factual basis (paragraph 19) has only been addressed by the German federalgovernment and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern but merely in a very general manner referring to theCommon European Asylum System (CEAS).Overall, the governments’ assessments provide a broad picture of national, regional andEuropean activities and provisions in the field of migration and integration with naturally a clearfocus on national arrangements. But compared to previous years, more in terms of projects andexchange facilities on migration and related issues seems to be in place on the regional level now.94.5. “Economic development and growth in the Baltic Sea Region”Nine out of twelve governments address in their statements at least some of the paragraphs oneconomic development and growth, revealing some interesting and useful information onnational and transnational projects partly linked to European programmes and directives. Mostassessments of this section are fairly short. Several governments address transport andinfrastructure in the first place. But still in addition, several (Latvia, Norway, Poland) express theirsupport for Blue Growth (paragraph 25) which they regard as an important topic of regionalcooperation (CBSS Expert Group on Sustainable Maritime Economy). The Latvian Presidency ofthe CBSS 2018-19 gave some thought on the “development and implementation on sustainablemaritime policy: opportunities and challenges for small and medium ports in the BSR” with aseminar taking place in Jurmala in April 2019. The Polish Ministry of Maritime Economy andInland Shipping currently works on a strategic government programme for the development ofPolish seaports until 2030. Several governments (Federal Republic of Germany, Estonia,Hamburg, Lithuania) underline and support the importance of the further development of thetrans-European transport network (TEN-T) in the BSR (paragraph 27), giving a lasting boost tothe economic competiveness and the balanced and sustainable development of the BSR. Estoniaand Lithuania hail Rail Baltica as the most important regional TEN-T rail project from whichcitizens and businesses will profit. The project should be completed by 2026. Lithuania expressesits support for the European Commission’s proposal on the revision of the EurovignetteDirective, introducing electronic tolls and reducing the differences in member states’ toll systems.Lithuania plans to introduce an electronic tolling system for trucks by 2020, aiming at movingparts of cargo from roads to railway.The Finnish government addresses paragraph 28 (Baltic Sea as a pioneer area for automaticshipping) by stating that Finland has actively participated in developing automatisation formaritime transportation through cooperation between universities and companies. It has alsotaken an active role in promoting trials of automatisation (including tests of an automaticpassenger ferry in the Gulf of Finland). While officially shipping in international waters fallsunder the responsibility of the German federal government, the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is committed to render shipping efficiently, economically, environmental friendlyand sustainable within the scope of its responsibility. This commitment includes investments inports infrastructure in order to be able to clear and fuel large vessels and dispose their waste in anenvironment friendly way.5. Synopsis and suggestionsOverall, the submitted statements underline the notion that the responding governments havetaken the 27th BSPC Resolution seriously. The response rate has been good although somewhatlower than in 2018. Most governments demonstrate a sincere effort to offer a good account ofhow national stakeholders have striven to implement the Resolutions’ calls and suggestions onthe national as well as the transnational/regional level. They overall contain a lot of interestingand useful information on implemented as well as planned activities and offer a broad and richpicture of the cooperation network across the Baltic Sea Region. This network does not onlyconsist of institutions and programmes in which all the countries of the region participate buteven those numerous initiatives/projects formed by a smaller group of countries/actors. Thevarious formats have a great potential to complement each other and to contribute all to reachingthe common goals and ambitions as for example outlined in the BSPC Resolution. The answersgive also proof that a lot in terms of structures is already in place in the BSR and that newstructures do not have to be invented. On the other hand, it also becomes obvious that existing10structures could and should be used more effectively and efficiently in order to achieve theobjectives as outlined in the Resolution.As in previous years, the submitted statements display a great variety both in terms of length,structure and elaborateness. Several governmental statements in general or several individualpoints within statements are straight to the point offering clear, specific and informativeanswers. This is facilitated by the fact that most paragraphs of the Resolution are more concreteand to the point than it occasionally has been the case in previous years. In this regard, and as inprevious years, the statements which contain varied responses from various responsibledepartments of the respective government are especially informative. Taking into account thatthe 27th Resolution has been considerably shorter than previous ones, governments might alsofind it easier and more convenient if they can focus their attention on fewer calls.However, other statements continue to be rather general and descriptive. Many statementsalso still contain a mere expression of support for certain calls of the Resolution referring toinstitutions, projects and initiatives without indicating and specifying how this governmentalsupport could look like in more concrete terms. Also several statements continue to containlengthy general descriptions of regional activities and initiatives that are widely known. Theymerely sum up in which regional cooperation formats, initiatives and projects respective countryis or has been participating. As in previous years, several statements read like technical exerciseswithout taking into account the broader political climate and without revealing high politicalambitions. Thus, as in previous years it still holds that the standard of comprehensiveness andquality as well as of concreteness and thoroughness could be increased even more in thefuture. There still is some potential for improvement in rendering the statements moreaccountable and relevant.Nonetheless, several governments seem to have followed the suggestion of previous years toconcentrate more on transnational initiatives compared to projects/laws/provisions strictlylimited to the national level. This effort has enriched the statements providing at times afascinating picture of the multi-faceted cross-border cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region. Itstrikes that the statements dwell less than in previous years on activities in the past, but focusmore on current and future activities in line with the Resolution’s character as a call for futureaction. In the future, governments could even try to formulate and offer more suchconsiderations for future action. It helps that the BSPC put the time frame a bit wider, as thepolicy analysis has suggested in 2018, by focussing in the 2018 Resolution on different topicsthan in 2017. This gives the governments the possibility to stretch the time frame a bit furtherback which means that they might have more to report on. This way it could be avoided thatinformation already provided in previous government responses is repeated. Repetitions stilloccurred in various responses also this year. It might help if this method, different topicsevery year, the same only every second year, and extending the reporting period to twoyears, would be systematized.Given all the numerous interesting activities which are given attention in the statements, it issometimes equally interesting what is not mentioned. Also this time hardly any statementaddresses the continuing fraught political climate around the Baltic Sea Region. It is only theGerman federal government stating that strengthening trust among all member states of theCBSS remains a priority. It is true that the climate overall seems to have somewhat improved asrecent developments within the CBSS give proof of (e.g. Jurmala Roadmap of the CBSSreforms). Both the Resolution as well as the governmental reports reveal a remarkable spirit ofcooperation. Nonetheless, the conflicts touching upon the region since 2014 have notdisappeared. Some tension can also be sensed in the governmental reports in several places e.g.when Lithuania rejects the idea of intensifying the interaction between ND, EUSBSR and the11Russian North-West strategy or when the Russian government criticizes Estonia and Latvia onenergy issues (see 4.1 and 4.3). In this spirit, future Resolutions and governmentalstatements need to be fully aware of the general political climate as well as possiblechanges (both to the better and to the worse) and be more explicit about theramifications of the changed environment, where it causes challenges, and elaborate howthe still existing cleavages could be overcome.12