Etzold speech at 28 BSPC

Policy Analysis – Baltic Sea Region Governments’ statements regarding theimplementation of the 27th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference ResolutionPresentation by Tobias EtzoldBasicsTwelve governmental counterparts of the twenty-two signatories of the 27th BSPC Resolution,excluding the three parliamentary institutions, submitted statements to the BSPC StandingCommittee regarding the implementation of the Resolution two fewer than in 2018The twelve submitted statements in reaction to the Resolution vary considerably concerningthematic depth, length and structure.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.Structure of Resolution and corresponding statements:- Preamble- “Cooperation in the Region”- “Vision of a Healthy Baltic Sea”- “Sustainable Energy, Smart energy distribution platforms”,- “Migration and Integration”,- “Economic development and growth in the Baltic Sea region”.Assessments of thematic areasAll thematic sections and most paragraphs have been addressed by at least several governmentsalthough too different extents. The statements include both national as well as transnationalmeasures to implement the Resolution. This analysis focuses on the latter but also gives a numberof examples of national initiatives and provisions. Of particular interest are those national andtransnational measures that are linked with each other i.e. national measures to implementregional, EU and international schemes for example in the chapter on the Baltic Seaenvironment.Main messages and recommendationsOverall, the submitted statements underline the notion that the responding governments havetaken the 27th BSPC Resolution seriously. Most governments demonstrate a sincere effort tooffer a good account of how national stakeholders have striven to implement the Resolutions’calls and suggestions on the national as well as the transnational/regional level. They overallcontain a lot of interesting and useful information on implemented as well as planned activitiesand offer a broad and rich picture of national and transnational activities and the cooperationnetworks across the Baltic Sea Region.The governmental responses provide evidence a lot in terms of structures is already in placein the BSR, including even several newer structures for example in the field of migration, andthat new structures do not have to be invented. On the other hand, it also becomes obvious thatexisting structures could and should be used more effectively and efficiently in order toachieve the objectives as outlined in the Resolution.Several governmental statements in general or several individual points within statements arestraight to the point offering clear, specific and informative answers. Others continue tobe rather general and descriptive. Many statements also still contain a mere expression ofsupport for certain calls of the Resolution referring to institutions, projects and initiatives withoutindicating and specifying how this governmental support could look like in more concrete terms.As in previous years, several statements read like technical exercises without taking into accountthe broader political climate and without revealing high political ambitions (in particular regardingparagraphs 1 and 2).Thus, as in previous years it still holds that the standard of comprehensiveness and quality aswell as of concreteness and thoroughness could and should be increased even more in thefuture. There still is some potential for improvement in rendering the statements moreaccountable and relevant.Nonetheless, statements dwell less than in previous years on activities in the past, but focus moreon current and future activities in line with the Resolution’s character as a call for future action.In the future, governments could even try to formulate and offer more such considerationsfor future action. It helps that the BSPC put the time frame a bit wider, as the policy analysis hassuggested in 2018, by focussing in the 2018 Resolution on different topics than in 2017. Thisgives the governments the possibility to stretch the time frame a bit further back which meansthat they might have more to report on. This way it could be avoided that information alreadyprovided in previous government responses is repeated. It may be helpful if this method,different topics every year, the same only every second year, and extending the reportingperiod to two years, would be systematized.Future Resolutions and governmental statements need to be fully aware of the general politicalclimate as well as possible changes (both to the better and to the worse) and be more explicitabout the ramifications of the changed environment, where it causes challenges, and elaboratehow the still existing cleavages could be overcome.