Cooperative Efforts under the European Union Strategy
for the Baltic Sea Region
A within-case study analysis
BSc Political Science Bachelor Thesis Project: New Perspectives on Global Sustainability Politics June 21st 2017
Author: Malte Konings 10752080 Supervisor: Dr. Philip Schleifer Second reader: Dr. Rosa Sanchez Salgado
i
Abstract
The concerns about the Baltic Sea environment and the absence of an effective and comprehensive approach to solve related problems led to the adoption of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region in 2009. Improving cooperation between regional stakeholders was described as one of the main objectives, essential for reducing marine pollution. This thesis engages with the regime effectiveness theory to assess the cooperative contributions of the strategy hitherto, by focusing on the output, outcome and impact dimension. The findings of this within-case study analysis show that the strategy installed a coordinated governance structure, in which redistributed funds were used and flagship projects were initiated to induce macro-regional cooperation. In turn, regional actors were successfully mobilized and expressed their willingness to participate in cooperative efforts, despite the challenges that lie ahead relating to Russia. The analysed flagship project exhibits that interaction took place in the form of resource pooling, capacity building and knowledge transfer, leading to follow-up initiatives striving to reduce marine pollution. The regime effectiveness framework proved useful to identify the mechanisms of the strategy and the reciprocal relation between the dimensions.
iii
List of Abbreviations
BSAP Baltic Sea Action Plan
BSR Baltic Sea region
BSRP Baltic Sea Region Programme
CBSS Council of the Baltic Sea States
COHIBA Control of Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea region
EC European Commission
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
EU European Union
EUSBSR European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region
HA Horizontal Action
HELCOM Helsinki Commission
NGO Non-governmental organization
PA Policy Area
UBC Union of the Baltic Cities
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ... i
List of Abbreviations ... iii
1. Introduction ... 1 1.1. Research Question ... 2 1.2. Structure ... 2 2. Theoretical Framework ... 4 2.1. Governance ... 4 2.2. Regime Effectiveness ... 5 2.3. Operationalization ... 7
3. Data and Methods ... 9
3.1. Research Design ... 9
3.2. Case-selection ... 10
3.3. Data and Data Collection ... 10
4. EUSBSR: Instruments for Cooperation ... 12
4.1. Mapping Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region ... 12
4.2. Instruments of the EUSBSR ... 14
5. The Strategy´s Outcome and Impact ... 18
5.1. The Process of Mobilizing Stakeholders ... 18
5.2. The COHIBA Flagship: Evaluating EUSBSR´s Impact ... 21
6. Conclusion ... 25
Reference List ... 27 Word count: 8796
1
1. Introduction
The Baltic Sea is one of the largest bodies of brackish water on the planet. Due to its geographical and climatological characteristics, it is considered unique. This, however, makes it highly vulnerable to environmental impacts caused by human activity (HELCOM 2010: 6). The sea is currently one of the world´s most threatened marine ecosystems, having to deal with eutrophication, unsustainable fishing and shipping, and marine litter (WWF 2017). The 85 million people living in the Baltic Sea region (BSR) are not only contributing to the problems occurring, but are simultaneously affected by the environmental and economic consequences. After all, the Baltic Sea provides services such as the provision of food and tourism related activities, which is hampered by unsustainable actions. A good environmental state is therefore of regional importance (HELCOM 2010: 51-52).
Addressing environmental problems is for obvious reasons most effective in cooperation with all countries affected. Although most of the BSR countries are nowadays European Union (EU) member states, the area has been lacking a comprehensive and coordinated approach to reduce marine pollution, despite the existence of the Northern Dimension promoting concrete cooperation also in this regard (EEAS 2017; European Parliament 2006: 8). The overlapping between regional organizations and national policies dealing with the Baltic Sea environment, was one of the reasons for proposing a joint strategy for the BSR in the European Parliament in 2006 (European Parliament 2006). Three years later, in 2009, the EU agreed on the implementation of its first macro-regional strategy, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR). The strategy involves the EU member states Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the German Bundesländer of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg, and Russia and Norway as external partners (Gänzle and Kern 2016a: 123). The main goal of the strategy is to improve transnational cooperation and cohesion policy, thereby tackling common challenges in the region such as marine pollution (Gänzle and Kern 2016b: 3). This new form of European governance is expanding, with three additional macro-regional strategies in the making (ibid.). The strategies are based on several core principles, such as the coordination between sectoral policies and actors, cooperation between countries, and the creation of partnerships between EU member states and external partners (idem: 4).
This thesis will assess the effectiveness of the EUSBSR in terms of improving regional cooperation to prevent marine pollution in the Baltic Sea. The strategy´s objective of saving the
2
sea can be perceived as the most significant one and strongly depends on regional cooperation (European Commission 2017). Whether the implementation has up to date led to a more comprehensive and intensive form of cooperation will be analysed within the regime effectiveness framework. This approach offers the possibilities to evaluate the factors leading to a potential progress (Underdal 1992; Young and Levy 1999). For the EUSBSR to have an environmental impact, the strategy in the first place needs to induce a strong and sophisticated regional cooperation. The regime effectiveness theory sets forth that achieving this objective depends on both the quality of the delivered instruments and the behavioural change that is in turn effectuated (Skjærseth and Wettestad 2002). It will thus be argued that these standards need to be met before the EUSBSR can be assessed positively. In recent years, the impact of the EUSBSR has been studied more frequently, offering insights in institutional developments, cooperative efforts and arising challenges (Gänzle and Kern 2016a; Tynkkynen 2017; Ozolina et al. 2010). However, the regime effectiveness theory has hitherto not been applied, although it might offer new perspectives on the EUSBSR´s mechanisms.
1.1. Research Question
This thesis aims at answering the following overarching research question: ´To what extent has the EUSBSR contributed to improving regional cooperation in regard to decreasing marine pollution in the Baltic Sea region?´ The main question is divided into two sub-questions:
a. Which instruments has the strategy provided to improve cooperation in the Baltic Sea region?
b. How do the instruments contribute to improving the regional cooperation?
1.2. Structure
In order to make a thorough analysis of the cooperative efforts in the BSR, the introduction will be followed by the theoretical framework, in which the concepts and operationalization of governance, cooperation and regime effectiveness will be elaborated on. Subsequent, an overview will be given of the research design, the case-selection and the collected data. The first chapter of the analysis will embody the mapping of existing cooperative structures in the BSR, after which the instruments of the EUSBSR will be described and assessed. The final
3
chapter will in turn deal with the mobilization of actors resulting from the implementation of the strategy, and exhibits the impact by analysing a flagship project. Finally, the conclusion of the thesis will be presented accompanied by recommendations for future research.
4
2. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, the theoretical framework of this thesis will be discussed. To inquire into the EUSBSR and its contribution to cooperation in the Baltic Sea region, the research builds on the theory of regime effectiveness. To be able to evaluate the impact of the strategy, the theoretical assumptions by Skjærseth and Wettestad (2002), Underdal (1992) and Young and Levy (1999) will be the foundation of the analysis. However, before further discussing the body of literature on regime effectiveness, it is important to conceptualise ´governance´ and the role of ´cooperation´ herein. The EUSBSR Action Plan states that integrated and coordinated governance is a key factor for success of the strategy (European Commission 2017: 8). Therefore, it needs to be stressed what governance is and how cooperation is related to the concept. This way, the main research question can be demarcated and at the same time accurately be defined.
2.1. Governance
There is a vast amount of literature on EU governance, inherently connected to the expansion of member-states that took place in the last decades (Gänzle 2009: 17-18; Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006: 27). Whereas the governance approach has become a widely-used research focus in European studies, it has meant simultaneously that there are numerous conceptualisations of the term. A shared notion however, is that governance refers to the participation of public and private actors, as well as non-hierarchical forms of decision-making (Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006: 28). Pierre (2000: 3) makes a distinction between two meanings of the governance concept, firstly regarding an empirical perspective, in which states adapt to their external environment. Put into different words, this means that governance can be considered both as a process and a state that engages public and private actors ´´in the intentional regulation of societal relationships and conflicts´´ (Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006: 28). Secondly, it refers to the conceptual or theoretical representation of the coordination of social systems, where the focus lies on the coordination of different forms of formal and informal types of public-private interaction (Pierre 2000: 3). These two meanings of governance differ since the first uses a state-centric perspective, and the latter puts forward a society centred approach (Kohler-Koch and Rittberger 2006: 28-29). Furthermore, a general connotation of
5
governance is provided within the Governance Analytical Framework presented by Hufty (2011: 405), that serves as a framework for analysing governance processes:
Governance refers to a category of social facts, namely the processes of interaction and decision making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions.
This definition allows an approach that incorporates actors from different levels of government, both within and between countries, as well as non-state actors in relation to cooperative efforts of problem-solving. ´Cooperation´ is closely linked to the governance concept here discussed, since it refers to processes of interaction for a common purpose. The intensity and scope of cooperation can vary within and between governance structures. Colomb (2007: 356) argues that the form of cooperation in a programme depends both on the issues that are being dealt with and the geography of a partnership. She offers a framework which entails a scale of five different levels of cooperation, starting with the least intensive and smallest scope of transnational cooperation (Table 1). This analytical framework can be applied to analyse the impact of the EUSBSR in terms of cooperative contributions.
2.2. Regime Effectiveness
In the work of Young and Levy (1999: 1) the question is raised, why some international environmental regimes are more successful than others. Effectiveness is therein defined as the impact of the institutional arrangement on the problem it is trying to solve. From a problem-solving approach, effectiveness could so be related to the degree to which a regime alleviates the problem that prompts its creation (idem: 4). From a political approach, effective regimes contribute or even cause changes in the behaviour of actors involved in the problem, leading to
Source: Author based on (Colomb 2007: 358)
6
improvement of the status-quo. This can be treated as an effect of the regime, attributable to its operation (idem: 5). In order to further analyse the literature on regime effectiveness, the ´´international regime´´ concept needs to be defined. A commonly accepted definition is:
social institutions consisting of agreed-upon principles, norms, rules, procedures and programs that govern the interaction of actors in specific issue areas (Levy et al. 1995: 274).
In this sense, regimes can exist in different forms and can be created for the purpose of both problem-solving and governing, addressing a variety of collective problems involving different actors and levels of government in specific regions. As Underdal (1992: 228) states, to be able to study international cooperative efforts, usually in the form of a regime, a sophisticated conceptual framework for studying regime effectiveness is needed. He argues that evaluating the effectiveness of cooperative agreements means that a comparison needs to be made against some standard of success. This implies that a framework should include at least three aspects, first concerning the constitution of the object to be evaluated, second the standard against which the object is to be evaluated, and third the operationality of comparing the object to the standard (ibid.).
Skjærseth and Wettestad (2002: 99) argue in their article on understanding the effectiveness of EU environmental policy, that there is a research gap between what is delivered in terms of policies, and what is achieved in terms of environmental improvement. This gap between the output and impact dimension of policy evaluation, in their view hampers the measurement of effectiveness. Therefore, the missing link that analyses what constitutes to effectiveness, called the outcome dimension, needs to be explored (idem: 106). This in turn enlarges the theoretical approaches used by Young and Levy (1999) and Underdal (1992), who mainly tend to focus on the output and impact dimension. Outcome is namely conceived as the second step in the effectiveness evaluation, connoting behavioural changes of those subject to the provisions of regimes (ibid.). In this chain of consequences, evaluating effectiveness implies a closer look on behavioural change and its role in problem-solving. The policy output or the implemented instruments, should cause both a change in behaviour and actual environmental improvements, which are presumed to be inter-linked. It thus requires a causal inference between output and outcome to understand whether the policy, or in this case a strategy, has caused a change of behaviour, which in turn relates to impact, defined as the tangible consequences affecting the problem at hand (idem: 106-107).
7
All in all, this implies that evaluating the effectiveness of the EUSBSR should have a focus on the output, outcome and impact dimension. In contrast to the theoretical perspectives that have been discussed here, the impact dimension in this thesis will not relate to improvements of the environment in the Baltic Sea region as such, but will instead take one of the main ambitions of the strategy as dependent variable, namely the cooperative contributions. To reduce marine pollution, a common approach has to be adopted that generates an environmentally friendly use of the sea by as many countries in the BSR. It is therefore deemed necessary to focus on cooperation, being the first aspect to be addressed in order to achieve the environmental aims set out by the EU. The theoretical framework is nevertheless considered appropriate, since it can serve as an instrument for analysing the effectiveness of the strategy.
2.3. Operationalization
In order to enable a critical assessment of the contributions of the EUSBSR in this thesis, the concepts that have been discussed need to be operationalized. First, ´cooperation´ has been divided into a scale, containing five different levels of intensity. Figure 1shows the criteria for the different levels of cooperation, providing a measurable variable. Within these forms of
Source: Adopted from (Colomb 2007: 358)
8
cooperation, learning is a relevant factor, that will therefore be taken into account in the analysis. This contributes to any conclusion that will be made by specifying the kind of cooperation the strategy is inducing.
Secondly, the three dimensions of effectiveness offered by Skjærseth and Wettestad (2002) need to be operationalized. The output dimension will refer to the instruments that have been provided with the implementation of the strategy. These instruments should be related to improving regional cooperation, since there should be a relation between what is delivered in terms of policies and the actual impact. Further, the outcome dimension considers the mobilization of actors within the EUSBSR context. This approach has been chosen, because this thesis builds on the premise that in order to improve the regional cooperation, it is necessary to involve relevant stakeholders from different institutional levels with similar interests. This is seen as an important factor in the causal inference between the strategy´s instruments and the form of cooperation. The process of actor mobilization is therefore perceived as a change of behaviour, since one is not forced to participate, but should instead be convinced that the strategy offers the right instruments and platforms to be a positive contribution to the BSR. Regional organizations and networks can be subject to the strategy, yet without the willingness to cooperate with other institutions and governments, the impact of the EUSBSR will most likely be limited. Lastly, the impact dimension will be analysed by using the criteria for cooperation as they have been defined in the previous paragraph. This in turn serves to address the actual contributions of the strategy brought forward within the flagship project.
9
3. Data and Methods
This chapter provides an overview of the research design, the case-selection, and the data and the collection method used in this thesis.
3.1. Research Design
This thesis is based on a within-case study analysis. The implementation of the EUSBSR in the Baltic Sea region and its contribution to the cooperative structure will serve as a case for this research on regime effectiveness. This approach entails a detailed and intensive analysis, which stands in relation to the engagement with the theoretical analysis (Bryman 2012: 66-71). The evaluation of the effectiveness builds on understanding the contributions of the EUSBSR to regional cooperation, therefore a case study suits best to generate a causal inference between the output, outcome and impact dimension. This research design also offers the opportunity to tailor the data collection procedures to the research question (Meyer 2001: 329-330).
Within this case study approach, a flagship project under the EUSBSR has been chosen for an in-depth analysis at a smaller scale. Meyer (2001: 334) describes this as an embedded design, in which attention is also being paid to subunits of the case. Although the overarching strategy is the main unit of analysis, this ´´case-in-case´´ approach offers the opportunity to have a closer look at the impact dimension of the strategy. Under the EUSBSR, flagship projects serve as a means to implement the strategy and can be perceived as pilot examples of desired change (European Commission 2017: 17). At the same time, they are in itself platforms of cooperation. Analysing the cooperative efforts within the flagship is therefore a suitable yardstick for evaluating the impact of the strategy.
Although the case study design suits best for this research, there are at least two limitations that can derive from this approach. First, case studies can hardly be generalized beyond the specific research context. The external validity of such an approach is strongly limited, which implies that any conclusions made in this analysis do not have to be representative for other macro-regional strategies (Bryman 2012: 70). Secondly, the internal validity could potentially be a weakness of this approach. Although different factors concerning the contributions of the strategy will be considered, one has to be aware whether there is an actual causal inference between the variables. In contrast to a quantitative analysis, this thesis
10
will identify a smaller number of variables, indicating that there can be other factors contributing to the results found here.
3.2. Case-selection
The EUSBSR has been chosen as a case study for several reasons. First and foremost, the strategy is the first one of its kind in Europe, serving as a new form of EU governance (Gänzle and Kern 2016b: 3). Since its adoption in 2009, the EU has decided to introduce three more strategies, for the Alpine region, the Danube region and the Adriatic and Ionian region. Therefore, this case study cannot only contribute to the existing literature on the EUSBSR, but also to the existing knowledge on the macro-regional approach of the EU in general. The fact that this is the oldest strategy gives the opportunity to analyse the progress made so far. Second, the Baltic Sea region is an area where cooperation has existed for the past decades. Several institutions serve as platforms for joint efforts in regard to environmental problems such as eutrophication and unsustainable shipping. This poses the question, why the European Commission (EC) initiated yet another layer of governance in this cooperative region.
Finally, the flagship project ´´Control of Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea region´´ (COHIBA) will serve to exhibit the impact of the strategy. As the name implies, the project dealt with identifying hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea region and their impact on the marine environment (COHIBA 2012a: 14). The project included partners from eight Baltic Sea states, and was coordinated by the Finnish Environment Institute. This flagship was chosen because it is part of the objective of ´´saving the sea´´. Moreover, the project was finished in an earlier stage of the implementation phase of the strategy, therefore the contributions can be analysed in terms of cooperation. The fact that sufficient data is available about this project was also considered while selecting this case.
3.3. Data and Data Collection
To be able to answer the research question, this thesis relies on a primary and secondary data analysis. This entails the use of policy documents, information from websites of relevant stakeholders and progress reports by the EU and independent institutions. This data has been collected through online searches on the websites of several institutions, such as the EUSBSR
11
and the EU. Furthermore, the thesis will make use of academic literature about the strategy. Since the strategy has gained interest among scientist, the previous findings can help to answer the research question and provide input for further analysis. It is taken into account that the reliability on policy documents and progress reports of stakeholders of the strategy can potentially affect the results of this research due to biases. Nevertheless, this approach offers the best possibilities to gather relevant information on the ongoing strategy within the limited time frame.
12
4. EUSBSR: Instruments for Cooperation
The focus in this chapter lies on the output dimension of the EUSBSR. Since a crucial part of effectiveness is whether the strategy solves the problems that prompted its creation, the first part will concentrate on the cooperative structures prior to the implementation of the strategy. This overview will contribute to the analysis of the instruments, as it shows the reasons for the adoption of the strategy by the EC. Subsequently, the instruments will be described and evaluated.
4.1. Mapping Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region
Cooperation in the BSR has existed for hundreds of years. Established networks from the Viking Age and the Hanse can be seen as the foundations for the regional cooperation taking place nowadays, which has become increasingly stable since the end of the Cold War (Heininen 2017: 3). Several factors contributed to this development, among which is the joint concern about the environment in the northern region. This has led to functional international cooperation and a deepened regional integration, especially into the 1990s (idem: 4). Two of the most important organizations at macro-regional level in the BSR are the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) (Gänzle 2017: 6). The CBSS is an intergovernmental platform of countries bordering the Baltic Sea, including Norway and Iceland. It brings together the heads of states and governments, and the foreign ministers (ibid.). The institution deals with joint regional challenges and specifically focusses on areas such as civil security, maritime economy and sustainable development (Hubel and Gänzle 2002). The CBSS has also taken a coordinating role for the governmental cooperation and has been a platform for sub-regional cooperation between the EU and Russia (ibid.).
Likewise, HELCOM is a major regional organization in the BSR (Gänzle 2017: 7). The contracting parties are both the EU and all the coastal countries of the Baltic Sea. Its main objective is to protect the marine environment from all sources of pollution (HELCOM 2009: 9). It is the governing body of the revised Helsinki Convention, which was signed in 1992 to encompass more maritime areas (Kern and Löffelsend 2004: 456). HELCOM is responsible for the coordination of intergovernmental activities. The commission meets annually, and the national delegates and working groups are responsible for the implementation of the Baltic Sea
13
Action Plan (BSAP) (HELCOM 2009: 9). This action plan is a programme aimed at restoring the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021 (HELCOM 2017a). Moreover, HELCOM monitors and assesses the environmental state of the sea, and gives policy recommendations to the member countries (HELCOM 2009: 29).
Further, other institutions and networks can be described to map the governance in the BSR. In short, the Northern Dimension was initiated in 1999 and aims at providing a framework to promote cooperation, economic integration and sustainable development in Northern Europe (EEAS 2017). This joint policy between the EU, Russia, Norway and Iceland also offers possibilities for participation of regional organizations and universities (ibid.). On a regional level, Baltic 21 is a transnational policy network that involves a variety of actors from nation-states as wells as civil society (Kern and Löffelsend 2004: 458). It is an expression of the Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations, and strives to assist countries of the BSR to achieve sustainable development (ibid.).
Despite the efforts that are being made, the implementation of the EUSBSR has been supported for several reasons. First, an important factor is the organisational fragmentation in the BSR (Germanas 2011: 25). There are numerous organizations in the region, both on lower and higher levels of government. As the networks discussed show, the problem is not that environmental problems cannot be solved due to a lack of cooperative efforts. Rather, the regional governance can be perceived as chaotic, with overlaps in policy areas and participation in different organizations. Initiatives are characterized by a high level of heterogeneity and informed by different political agendas (Scott 2002: 136). One can differentiate between forms of multilateral cooperation on different administrative levels, making the institutional setting more complex (Figure 2).
In addition, the traditional Nordic cooperation between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden is more developed and integrated than the Baltic States´ partnership (idem: 24-25). The former benefits from available organisational and financial resources, and adequate policy programmes, while the latter is lacking these resources and is in a less developed stage of intergovernmental integration (ibid.). This is problematic because the common problems cannot be tackled accordingly without cooperation between these affected countries. Since the Nordic organizations are reluctant to include the Baltic States in their governance structure, one can argue that effective problem-solving is hampered, at least at the national level (ibid.). Another problem that was found specifically within HELCOM was that smaller non-governmental organizations (NGO) were often unable to participate, due to the resource
14
intensity of the organizational processes (Kern and Löffelsend 2004: 475). The representation of these NGOs was therefore insufficient, although HELCOM is an important organization targeting environmental issues. Finally, the BSR cooperation is lacking a coordinating top-down institution. In the macro-region, there is a call for an institution that encompasses such competencies (Germanas 2011: 21). This is necessary to reduce the overlap in policies, but also to create more consistency between organizations on different government levels.
4.2. Instruments of the EUSBSR
The adoption of the EUSBSR in 2009 was a result of discussions within the EU that had started in the 1990s, concerning the idea of creating ´´regional groupings´´. Even though cooperation in the BSR had existed for a long period of time, EU cross-border and transnational cooperation programmes were rather new to the region. The main reason for this was that most of the
Source: Adopted from (Germanas 2011: 22)
15
countries in the BSR had only been member of the EU since the enlargement of 2004 (Gänzle and Kern 2016a: 125). The EUSBSR was created in the European Parliament, where a Euro-Baltic Intergroup consisting of Members of Parliament from the BSR member states felt the need to maximize the potential of the region, and to lobby for a consolidated EU pillar of Baltic Sea states within the Northern Dimension (Gänzle 2017: 2). The strategy was assessed as a suitable instrument to enhance BSR cooperation, and was thus a priority for the Swedish government during its EU presidency in 2009 (Bengtsson 2009: 1). The organisational fragmentation as shown in the previous paragraph could presumably be met by such a macro-regional strategy, putting forward a comprehensive approach to the area as one entity (idem: 2). The strategy as such entails several objectives, of which ´´save the sea´´ and its sub-objectives are arguably the most essential at this time. In order to face common environmental challenges, better and closer cooperation between all coastal countries is deemed necessary (European Commission 2017: 41). Therefore, the EUSBSR has forwarded several instruments that will be analysed against the background of BSR cooperation and its shortcomings.
First, the EU has sought to restructure the regional governance by defining the roles and responsibilities of the main stakeholders of the EUSBSR, thereby developing an administrative body to coordinate the implementation of the strategy and related environmental policies. The European Commission is therein playing a leading role, and is responsible for the coordination of the delivery stages of the strategy (European Commission 2017: 10). This entails that the EC should promote and facilitate the involvement of stakeholders from all institutional levels in the macro-region. Simultaneously, dialogue and cooperation with stakeholders from other interested BSR states should be encouraged. This specifically targets non-EU states, such as Russia, who are significant actors in facing the environmental challenges, but are not yet fully involved in the strategy (Gänzle and Kern 2016b: 8). Furthermore, the Member States are responsible for the implementation of the strategy, and have to enhance the political support at all national levels. At the same time, national governments are responsible for coordinating and integrating relevant policies in line with the EUSBSR (European Commission 2017: 11). In these tasks, they are supported by national coordinators, who seek political support and commitment to implement the strategy in the home country. To avoid overlap and induce coherence and exchange of best practices, the coordinators cooperate with their respective partners in the BSR (idem: 12).
Secondly, the EC has forwarded flagship projects as an instrument for the implementation of the strategy. These projects can be seen as pilot examples of the progress that is being made in the BSR under the strategy, while at the same time promoting cooperation
16
and coordination due to their institutional character (idem: 17). Flagships are often the result of discussions within certain Policy Areas (PA) or Horizontal Actions (HA) in the strategy. The EUSBSR counts thirteen PAs and four HAs (idem: 8). The former is concerned with tackling main challenges and opportunities in the region, such as the bio economy and marine hazards, while the latter specifically focusses on incorporating governments from different BSR countries, for instance by facing climate change problems and creating added value to regional cooperation by working together with neighbouring countries (idem: 2). To foster the ambitions within these areas, the flagships can be designed to develop new methodologies, solutions or be a network aiming for new forms of cooperation. Besides following specific guidelines, flagships also need to meet three criteria: having a high macro-regional impact; contributing to meeting the objectives, indicators and targets of the strategy; and relating to the implementation of one or more actions of the concerning PA (idem: 18). The contributing factor of flagships to the region is that any organisation, varying from governments at the local and regional level to NGOs, can apply for this status, and consequently promote cooperation and problem-solving in a coordinated bottom-up fashion.
Finally, the EU opted that the strategy should not lead to the creation of new institutions or legislations, and stated that no additional funding would be available. This is referred to as the ´´three no´s´´ (McMaster and Van der Zwet 2016: 50-51). However, excluding these three optional instruments consequently leads to adopting alternate tools to improve cooperation. Instead of creating new institutions or legislation, which would have fragmentised the situation in the BSR even more, the EUSBSR is accompanied by a regularly revised Action Plan (European Commission 2017). The plan does not merely define the governance structure and the objectives, but is also a guideline for the stakeholders. Since the adoption of the strategy, the Action Plan has been updated several times due to developments and the rise of new challenges. This flexibility gives the opportunity to adapt to common problems and makes sure that stakeholders stay in contact about recent developments. Moreover, given that the EU is not granting additional funds, the EUSBSR seeks to match existing funds to the priority areas. The strategy is therefore connected to the Baltic Sea Region Programme (BSRP) 2014-2020, which is funded by the EU through its European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and supports integrated territorial development and cooperation, as well as a more sustainable BSR (Kern and Gänzle 2013: 10; Interreg 2017). Interreg BSRP is one of the main financers of the EUSBSR and is especially of importance to the flagships and the support of macro-regional cooperation on the technical level (Interreg 2017). To improve the awareness of the organisations in the BSR in regard to funding availability, the EUSBSR has created a website
17
that shows all the available funding instruments for the specific policy fields. The Baltic Funding Portal makes cooperation possible by portraying over 300 funding instruments (EUSBSR 2017a). This output creates opportunities for cooperation, since prior to the implementation funding instruments were less, or perceived to be less accessible and transparent. This way, smaller organizations could be incentivized to join cooperative efforts in the BSR.
18
5. The Strategy´s Outcome and Impact
In this chapter, the outcome and impact dimension of the EUSBSR will be analysed. In order to do so, the two concepts within the regime effectiveness framework are assessed in separate paragraphs. On the one hand, this helps to expose the causal mechanism between the two dimensions as well as the instruments, and at the same time offers the possibility to make use of an in-depth analysis of the impact dimension by focussing on a flagship project. The main research question can consequently be answered.
5.1.The Process of Mobilizing Stakeholders
The successful mobilization of stakeholders depends both on the quality of the strategy´s output, as on whether institutions are convinced that these instruments can in turn lead to an improved cooperative setting. This can create a willingness to cooperate with actors from different countries and institutional levels that has in past decades been confined by problems of coordination. The premise is that this behavioural change among regional actors is in the end important for the strategy to have an impact. So, the successful mobilization of actors by the EUSBSR will in this paragraph be inquired into, as well as problems occurring in the process. In the first place, the governance structure of the EUSBSR has opened opportunities for joint approaches between the strategy and regional organizations. The development of policy areas that demarcate the objectives and divide responsibilities between stakeholders, has resulted in an institutional interplay with organizations such as HELCOM (Gänzle 2017: 7). HELCOM is a source of expertise on the environmental state of the Baltic Sea, and publishes annual progress reports that are useful for flagship projects in this context. The synergies that evolve from this cooperation can simultaneously enhance the implementation of both the BSAP and the EUSBSR. HELCOM´s action plan is mainly targeting environmental problems, but this can merely be effective when inducing a broader approach involving all BSR stakeholders (HELCOM 2007). The HELCOM Commission has been willing to increase cooperation with the EUSBSR, stating that this will save resources and add to the efficiency in reaching mutual goals (HELCOM 2015: 1). The organization wants to contribute to the EUSBSR Action Plan and has also proposed to operationalize cooperation. Moreover, the commission supports a systematic cooperation, consisting of co-leading PAs, regular meetings with representatives of
19
the strategy, and opportunities for HELCOM to provide feedback on new flagship project ideas (idem: 3-4). In this fashion, the EUSBSR has offered a governance structure that HELCOM considers appropriate for future cooperation. The process of mobilizing the organization can to some extent be conceived as a change of behaviour, because this extends HELCOM´s cooperation to a larger policy context involving more multilevel stakeholders than before, thereby preventing policy overlap (European Commission 2017: 26). This means that HELCOM can enhance its coordinative function in the region and concurrently maintain its influential role as environmental organization, due to its willingness to operate in this macro-regional context.
Furthermore, the EUSBSR has promoted the inclusion of cities within the governance structure of the BSR. The municipal level has been involved in cooperation for decades, especially within the Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC), in which over 100 towns are participating (Sergunin and Joenniemi 2017: 6). Cities operating as international actors, or city twinning, is often seen as a contribution and an effective way of cooperating across national borders. In the recent history, agreements on the municipal level were mainly regarding economic and cultural ties (idem: 4). However, cities have an important role to play in overcoming environmental issues in the Baltic Sea. Waste water from cities in the coastal area is one of the main contributors of waterborne nutrient inputs. Phosphorus is such a nutrient, and measurements have shown that it is a major cause of pollution of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM 2017b). The implementation of the EUSBSR has in this regard stimulated the UBC to work together with regional stakeholders, and it is put forth that the organisation has benefited from increased cooperation (European Commission 2017: 30). The UBC had already expressed its willingness to engage in a formal role in the strategy, which has led to a work programme within the HA Capacity (EUSBSR 2016: 1; UBC 2009: 14). Despite this positive outcome, the mobilization of cities could yet be improved. Since only one Russian city is a member of the UBC, namely St. Petersburg, and Russia can be seen as one of the most important actors for the Baltic Sea environment, it is questionable whether an optimal problem-solving approach can be achieved (Tynkkynen 2017: 127; UBC 2017). The objectives of the EUSBSR regarding marine pollution depend on external actors like Russia, which implies that this aspect of cooperation is still up for improvement (Markarychev and Sergunin 2017: 1).
Building on this finding, the mobilization of Russia on the national level is also insufficient. Although the strategy does not commit non-EU member countries, it is nevertheless aiming for closer cooperation with external partners. Two problems have nonetheless arisen reducing the outcome in relation to Russia. First, the EU-Russian relations
20
have deteriorated due to the Ukrainian conflict (idem: 9-10). This isolated Russia from the BSR community, visible in the cancelation of the 2014 CBSS summit, and the appeal for NATO protection by the Baltic States (ibid.). Secondly, Russia perceives the EUSBSR as an EU internal strategy (Gänzle 2017: 10). This weakens the position of the strategy as a platform for external cooperation. However, the Russian Federation has launched a northwest strategy, which in fact offers initiatives for joined actions within common priorities (ibid.). As the overall mobilization of Russia is still limited, this could be a step in the right direction.
In addition to the mobilization of city authorities, the EUSBSR instruments have attracted local institutions, among which are foundations, companies and universities (EUSBSR 2017b). In particular the latter can be a contribution to macro-regional cooperation in respect to marine pollution. As the flagship projects are accompanied by funding opportunities, for example through the Interreg programme, possibilities for cooperation have opened up as a result of reducing the practical costs for these institutions. The EUSBSR is also stimulating the mobilizing efforts by organizing a participation day (EUSBSR 2017c). Although this has not yet taken place, the programme defines that bottom-up participation of potential stakeholders, such as businesses and universities, is essential for the implementation of the strategy (idem: 2). Therefore, issues regarding the increase of participation will be discussed by looking at proposals, initiatives and best practices (ibid.). This is relevant, because the contribution of cooperation with universities has already been evident prior to the EUSBSR´s implementation. In a project on waste management in the BSR, cooperation contributed to the exchange of experiences between the countries, stimulated innovation and established partnerships between academia, authorities and businesses (Filho et al. 2015: 106). However, it has also been mentioned that in order to face challenges in the future through cooperative efforts, resources needed to be found to manage this and make participation affordable (ibid.). The EUSBSR has so far accomplished the necessary redistribution of funds across the flagships. Universities have through this seen the potential of cooperating in the strategy, knowing that this will also improve their own skills, knowledge and can enrich their courses´ content, based on the mentioned project (ibid.). The successful mobilization is for example expressed in the ongoing EUSBSR flagship ´´NonHazCity´´, that seeks to find innovative solutions to minimize emissions of hazardous substances from urban areas that lead to marine pollution in the Baltic Sea (NonHazCity 2017). In this flagship, the Turku University of Applied Science, the University of Gdansk and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences are working together with municipalities and institutions from seven BSR countries (EUSBSR 2017b). The fact that these
21
universities are willing to cooperate under the macro-regional strategy is a change of behaviour as such, and an indicator of the perceived quality of the offered instruments.
All in all, the outcome has so far been successful in that macro-regional multilevel stakeholders have been mobilized for the implementation of the EUSBSR. Actors that have been cooperating in the past, are now participating in a more comprehensive context, which benefits both them and the environment if far-reaching cooperation can be sustained. The Euro-Russian relations are still problematic for the region, and therefore, it is especially valuable to strengthen sub-national ties with this external partner. Although this needs to be improved, some progress is being made by including St. Petersburg as part of the UBC in the strategy.
5.2. The COHIBA Flagship: Evaluating EUSBSR´s Impact
The EUSBSR has provided instruments for cooperation and mobilized stakeholders in order to reach its objectives. The output and the outcome should in turn cause the strategy to have an impact. Therefore, this paragraph will be concerned with assessing the tangible consequences of the macro-regional approach, reflected in a flagship project, which should portray the progress of the strategy in terms of mutual efforts. Thus, assessing the COHIBA project should add to our understanding of the form of interaction taking place, and finally conclude whether the EUSBSR has been effective in contributing to regional cooperation.
First of all, the COHIBA project operated from 2009 until 2012 and was granted the flagship status under the EUSBSR PA Hazards (EUSBSR 2017d: 47). Since hazardous substances are a cause of marine pollution in the Baltic Sea, the flagship participants studied the sources and inputs of eleven substances defined in the HELCOM BSAP. These substances occur in the ecosystem due to their use in production processes and in households (COHIBA 2012a: 17). The project had several main objectives, namely the identification of sources in countries around the Baltic Sea, development of innovative and cost-effective monitoring, analysis of flow patterns to the Baltic Sea, development of recommendations to reduce discharges, and knowledge transfer of best practices and capacity-building (idem: 16). The macro-regional dimension was expressed in the fact that partners from eight BSR countries were directly involved (Table 2).
To meet the objective of achieving better cooperation, COHIBA consisted of six work packages (WP) which were each coordinated by a partner institution (COHIBA 2012b). These
22
separate programmes were dealing both with the control of hazardous substances, as well as with capacity-building, knowledge transfer, project management and communication (ibid.). Besides this, the EUSBSR Action Plan sets forth that through better cooperation, the implementation of the BSAP can be accelerated (European Commission 2017: 41). COHIBA was directly building on this premise, by striving to contribute to the BSAP and including HELCOM as a project partner (COHIBA 2012a: 19). Since COHIBA is part of the PA Hazards under the objective of ´´saving the sea´´, cooperation with other policy areas was in advance stimulated as well. There was for example a close cooperation set out with PA Nutri, concerned with the problem of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea (SEPA 2016).
Besides presenting a general overview of the objectives in regard to cooperative efforts, it needs to be evaluated how actual processes of interaction within COHIBA took place and whether this can be seen as a macro-regional contribution. The first thing that strikes is that the partners involved were a representation of the EU macro-regional countries and had different multilevel backgrounds. Environmental institutes, research centres, universities, municipalities and (sub-)national government institutions were all cooperating in the COHIBA framework. The fact that HELCOM was participating in the project was benefiting both the implementation of the BSAP as well as the EUSBSR, since both strategies rely on each other’s impact. In general, the arising synergies between the EU and HELCOM have allowed the latter to gain a position where it can influence environmental decision-making in Brussels, and gave the EU the possibility to make use of HELCOM as regional environmental protection agency (Gänzle and Kern 2016a: 133). In addition to the directly involved partners, the flagship also incorporated ties with associated organisations in Russia, such as the St. Petersburg Scientific Research Centre and the Centre for Transboundary Cooperation (COHIBA 2011). This was a
Source: Author based on (COHIBA 2011) Table 2: COHIBA Project Partners
23
good starting point for cooperation within the project and enabled a comprehensive approach, because of the inclusion of different areas of expertise and the contribution of institutions that were in an advanced stage of development. It is also favourable for the BSR on the long-term, that local and regional institutions were thereby gaining experience in transnational cooperation. The mobilization of actors has so led to the involvement of valuable partners in addressing environmental problems.
Furthermore, the exchange of information within flagship projects is significant for the form of cooperation taking place. COHIBA´s WP6, led by the Baltic Environment Forum, was set up to enhance information flows between stakeholders (COHIBA 2012a: 12). Seminars and trainings have been organized for that purpose for the partners throughout the duration of the flagship, thereby inducing capacity-building among stakeholders. The sessions targeted specific groups of up to 50 participants, both project partners and relevant regional enterprises and institutions (BEF 2012). The progress made within the WPs was regularly presented in newsletters and sporadically during meetings with stakeholders (COHIBA 2009; 2012a: 21). Providing information on hazardous substances was regarded as both important to increase awareness among stakeholders, and to improve knowledge of these existing problems. The awareness of the risks of the substances has been present to a larger extent in Sweden, Finland, Germany and Denmark, than in the Baltic States and Poland (COHIBA 2012a: 48). The fact that trainings were therefore organized to pool expertise and increase the capacity of institutions from the latter countries, that international seminars took place in Estonia and Latvia specifically aimed at exchanging experience with eastern BSR stakeholders, and that an online glossary was developed including terms of hazardous substances in these languages, added to the impact of the project (idem: 48-49).
Subsequently, the PA Hazards strives to connect policies to actions, by focussing on the added value of cooperation to reach the objective of a good environmental status of the Baltic Sea (European Commission 2017: 96). A sustainable platform for cooperation however depends on the funding that can be aligned. The project has in this regard received 3,8 million euro from the ERDF, provided through the BSRP 2007-2013 (EUSBSR 2017d: 47). Combined with financial contributions from the project partners, this added up to a total budget of 4,9 million euro (BSRP 2011). Although data about specific COHIBA expenses is not available, the BSRP is described as a financing tool for cooperation, and evaluations of their funded projects have generally proven that funding contributed to the formalisation of networks and activities after the project completion, development of new concepts and tools applied by project partners, utilization of tools outside the partnership, and encouraging further
project-24
based initiatives (BSRP 2011; Ramboll 2014: 18). It can be argued that the funding aligned to COHIBA served cooperative efforts, in that meetings could be organized and attended throughout the BSR, new methods could be jointly developed to monitor the hazardous substances, and training programmes could be initiated to enhance knowledge transfer. The EUSBSR´s aim of redistributing funds has thus evidently contributed to cooperation in the macro-regional context.
The last finding regarding cooperation is that the achieved results, such as the identification of substances in urban areas and the provision of new information about instruments reducing these substances in the eastern BSR, incentivized actors to build on the processes in a follow-up flagship project (European Commission 2013: 93). InnoMaHaz aimed at applying the knowledge gained under COHIBA and analysing potential gaps which had been identified (ibid.). However, the project is not mentioned in the recent EUSBSR progress reports, and data on contributions is not available. This leads to the conclusion that the project was not completed. The ongoing NonHazCity flagship can nevertheless benefit from the results of COHIBA, since it addresses small-scale emitters and tries to reduce the consumption of hazardous substances at the source in order to avoid marine pollution (NonHazCity 2017). This shows that effective cooperation within flagships can potentially enhance the impact of other projects. It corresponds with the conclusion of the evaluation of other BSRP funded projects, since flagships encouraged new initiatives (Ramboll 2014: 18).
Taking everything into account, the cooperation within COHIBA was of a high intensity. As Colomb (2007: 357) has argued, the type of issues dealt with effects the scope of cooperation and therefore the learning processes that take place. Due to the character of the environmental problem, which is caused by regionwide production and consumption, an effective problem-solving approach implied cooperating on this macro-regional platform. The impact of the EUSBSR has been substantial because it offered the right instruments for the flagship to function, mobilized partners from across the region for the governance of the strategy, and in the end ensured a sophisticated form of cooperation between the institutions to face common environmental challenges. Although the flagship projects are by themselves instruments, it has become clear that jointly working to find solutions for both environmental problems and cooperative deficiencies, can lead to improved forms of interaction. Existing cooperative structures and non-EUSBSR instruments have seemingly parted in this success, but the coordinative activities induced by the strategy were a significant incentive for further improvements.
25
6. Conclusion
This thesis has been concerned with the effectiveness of the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region in terms of improving regional cooperation. In order to analyse this, the regime effectiveness framework has been applied, compiling the output, outcome and impact dimension. This way, the factors leading to the impact of the strategy and their mutual relations could be inquired into. With the adoption of the EUSBSR in 2009 as the first macro-regional strategy, a new form of EU governance expanded. The deteriorating state of the Baltic Sea, and the fragmentation and lacking coordination in the region added to the necessity of implementing a common strategy to, among other things, improve cooperative efforts. Whether the strategy has thus far succeeded in this aim posed the basis of this research. The main research question that was therefore formulated was: To what extent has the EUSBSR contributed to improving regional cooperation in regard to decreasing marine pollution in the Baltic Sea region?
In the first place, the instruments provided by the strategy have induced a more comprehensive governance structure in the BSR. The coordinative issues that were a reason for the adoption of the EUSBSR have been addressed by defining the roles and responsibilities of key actors, which constructed an administrative body looking over the processes of cooperation and environmental policy implementation. The flagships have in turn opened up opportunities to tackle common problems by involving multilevel actors from the countries in the macro-region, whereas cooperation prior to the EUSBSR was mainly composed of institutions from similar government tiers. Finally, by incorporating EU funding programmes the strategy has supported new initiatives that seek to prevent marine pollution in the future.
Secondly, the output has stimulated the mobilization of actors due to the adequate design. The involvement of HELCOM was important to jointly address environmental problems, since the organization has been a key actor in the BSR for decades. The fact that city authorities are willing to expand their cooperative efforts to the macro-region is also contributing to the problem-solving platform constructed by the strategy. The role of universities has increased as well, which adds to their experience and enlarges the expertise within the EUSBSR. However, the biggest challenge that needs to be faced is involving Russia, yet this is problematized by external factors.
The last aspect that was considered within the effectiveness framework was the impact dimension. It has been found that the EUSBSR´s instruments have effectuated an institutional change of behaviour, displayed in the mobilization of actors. Consequently, this has led to an
26
improvement of cooperation in the BSR. The COHIBA project proved that flagships can be well-coordinated platforms for intensive cooperation between regional multilevel stakeholders. The information exchange through seminars and trainings led to learning processes among the partners and as a result, capacity building and pooling of expertise took place. The fruitful cooperation eventually led to follow-up projects, increasing the impact of COHIBA. In sum, this thesis displayed that the three dimensions need to be addressed to assess the effectiveness of the strategy, and that the impact thus closely relates to the quality of the instruments and the successful mobilization of regional stakeholders. In the endeavour to exhibit the reciprocal relation, it has been found that a deficiency of either the output or the outcome, in consequence could affect the other dimensions.
The answers provided in this thesis and the arguments that were made in this regard, should nevertheless be interpreted with several reservations. Since the EUSBSR is an ongoing strategy, the impact can thus far not be evaluated in its entirety. Moreover, the effectiveness of the cooperation has been related to the problems of marine pollution. As the strategy comprehends several other objectives, one could contest that a general conclusion about the progression in the BSR can in turn not be fully generated from this research. Finally, although flagships follow similar guidelines, there is not a guarantee that the intensity of cooperation within COHIBA is in accordance with other projects. However, these limitations can be fertile ground for future research on this topic. The environmental problems will demand closer cooperation over time. Whether the strategy´s implementation has benefited the state of the Baltic Sea needs to be inquired into. Also, the findings in this research could be compared to other macro-regional strategies that are currently being employed, adding to our understanding of the effectiveness of this EU governance approach in general.
27
Reference List
BEF (Baltic Environment Forum) (2012). ´´ COHIBA: Trainings 2009-2011´´,
http://www.bef.ee:80/index.php?id=895. Accessed on April 30th 2017.
Bengtsson, R. (2009). ´´An EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: Good Intentions Meet Complex Challenges´´, European Policy Analysis, 9: 1-12.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BSRP (Baltic Sea Region Programme) (2011). ´´Media Release´´,
http://eu.baltic.net/Project_Database.5308.html?contentid=15&contentaction=single& bsr_usercontent=news&bsr_usercontent_action=view&news_id=210. Accessed on May 3rd 2017.
COHIBA (Control of Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea region) (2009) ´´COHIBA News´´,
http://www.cohiba-project.net:80/publications/en_GB/publications/_files/82275245929988470/default/Co hiba1-09.pdf. Accessed on April 28th 2017.
COHIBA (Control of Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea region) (2011). ´´COHIBA in a
nutshell´´,
http://www.cohiba-project.net:80/publications/en_GB/publications/_files/82882383913884464/default/C OHIBA in a nutshell.pdf. Accessed on April 30th 2017.
COHIBA (Control of Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea region) (2012a). ´´How to control and manage hazardous substances in the Baltic Sea region? Final summary report of the
COHIBA project´´,
http://www.cohiba-project.net:80/publications/en_GB/publications/_files/87878196652147299/default/C
OHIBA FinalSummaryReport_28062012.pdf. Accessed on April 29th 2017.
COHIBA (Control of Hazardous Substances in the Baltic Sea region) (2012b). ´´Aims and plans´´, http://www.cohiba-project.net:80/aims_plans/en_GB/aims_plans/. Accessed on April 29th 2017.
Colomb, C. (2007). ´´The added value of transnational cooperation: Towards a new framework for evaluating learning and policy change´´, Planning Practice & Research, 22 (3): 347-372.
28
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/347/northern-dimension_en. Accessed on May 20th 2017.
European Commission (2013). ´´European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Action Plan´´,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/baltic/action_2 013_en.pdf. Accessed on May 3rd 2017.
European Commission (2017). ´´European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, Action
Plan´´, http://www.balticsea-region.eu/action-plan?task=document.viewdoc&id=17.
Accessed on April 19th 2017.
European Parliament (2006). ´´Report on a Baltic Sea Region Strategy for the Northern Dimension´´,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=//EP//NONSGML+REPORT
+A6-2006-0367+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN. Accessed on May 25th 2017.
EUSBSR (European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) (2016). ´´ HA Capacity- work programme´´, http://groupspaces.com/eusbsr-governance/item/1073803. Accessed on May 23rd 2017.
EUSBSR (European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) (2017a). ´´Baltic Funding´´, http://funding.balticsea-region.eu/. Accessed on May 24th 2017.
EUSBSR (European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) (2017b). ´´Flagship Partners´´, http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/action-plan/24-flagship-partners-2016.
Accessed on June 2nd 2017.
EUSBSR (European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) (2017c). ´´EUSBSR
Participation Day invites local and regional actors to join Baltic Sea region cooperation´´, http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/communication/news/590822- eusbsr-participation-day-invites-local-and-regional-actors-to-join-baltic-sea-region-cooperation. Accessed on May 18th 2017.
EUSBSR (European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region) (2017d). ´´Annex to the Action Plan for the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: Ongoing and completed flagships
of the EUSBSR´´,
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/baltic/annex_a
ction_092015_en.pdf. Accessed on May 7th 2017.
Filho, W.L., Kruopienė, J., Stenmarck, Å. and Moora, H. (2015). ´´Towards sustainable waste management in the Baltic Sea region countries: the contribution of universities´´, Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal, 9 (1): 96–108.
29
Gänzle, S. (2009). ´´EU Governance and the European Neighbourhood Policy: A Framework for Analysis´´, Europe-Asia Studies, 61 (10): 1715-1734.
Gänzle, S. and Kern, K. (2016a). ´´The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region´´. In: Gänzle, S. and Kern, K. (Eds) A ´Macro-regional´ Europe in the Making: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence, 123-144. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gänzle, S. and Kern, K. (2016b). ´´Macro-regions, ´Macro-regionalization´ and Macro-regional Strategies in the European Union: Towards a New Form of European Governance?´´. In: Gänzle, S. and Kern, K. (Eds) A ´Macro-regional´ Europe in the Making: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence, 3-22. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gänzle, S. (2017). ´´The European Union´s Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR): improving multilevel governance in Baltic Sea cooperation?´´, Journal of Baltic Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01629778.2017.1305205.
Germanas, N. (2011). ´´The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) and Other Forms of Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region´´. In: Stratenschulte, E. (Ed.) Das europäische Meer – Die Ostsee als Handlungsraum, 21-28. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag. Heininen, L. (2017). ´´The Arctic, Baltic, and North-Atlantic ‘cooperative regions’ in ‘Wider
Northern Europe’: similarities and differences´´, Journal of Baltic Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01629778.2017.1305180.
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) (2007). ´´HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan´´,
http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Baltic%20sea%20action%20plan/BSAP_Final.pdf. Accessed on June 4th 2017.
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) (2009). ´´Activities 2008: Overview´´,
http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP118.pdf. Accessed on June 3rd 2017.
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) (2010). ´´Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea´´,
http://www.helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP122.pdf. Accessed on May 25th 2017.
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) (2015). ´´Increasing synergies with the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea region (EUSBSR) - Ways to institutionalize the cooperation between
HELCOM and EUSBSR´´,
http://helcom.fi/Documents/About%20us/HELCOM%20input%20on%20synergies%2
0with%20EUSBSR%2024%20Feb%202015-rev.pdf. Accessed on May 29th 2017.
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) (2017a). ´´Baltic Sea Action Plan´´,
30
HELCOM (Helsinki Commission) (2017b). ´´Waste Water: Basic Facts´´,
http://helcom.fi/action-areas/industrial-municipal-releases/waste-water/basic-facts/. Accessed on May 23rd 2017.
Hubel, H. and Gänzle, S. (2002). ´´Der Ostseerat: Neue Funktionen subregionaler
Zusammenarbeit im Kontext der EU-Osterweiterung´´,
http://www.bpb.de/apuz/26918/der-ostseerat-neue-funktionen-subregionaler-zusammenarbeit-im-kontext-der-euosterweiterung?p=all. Accessed on May 18th 2017.
Hufty, M. (2011). ´´Investigating Policy Processes: The Governance Analytical Framework (GAF). In Hurni, H. and Wiesmann, U. (Eds) NCCR north-south synthesis, 403-424. Bern: NCCR North-South/Geographica Bernensia.
Interreg (2017). EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region´´,
http://www.interreg-baltic.eu/about-the-programme/eusbsr/interreg-and-eusbsr.html. Accessed on June 3rd 2017.
Kern, K. and Gänzle, S. (2013). ´´Towards Cruising Speed? Assessing the EU Strategy for the
Baltic Sea Region´´, European Policy Analysis,
http://www.sieps.se/sites/default/files/2013_17epa.pdf.
Kern, K. and Löffelsend, T. (2004). ´´Sustainable development in the Baltic sea region. Governance beyond the nation state´´, Local Environment, 9 (5): 451-467.
Kohler-Koch, B. and Rittberger, B. (2006). ´´Review article: The ‘Governance Turn’ in EU Studies´´, Journal of Common Market Studies, 44 (1): 27-49.
Levy, M.A., Young, O.R. and Zürn, M. (1995). ´´The Study of International Regimes´´, European Journal of International Relations, 1 (3): 267-330.
Markarychev, A. and Sergunin, A. (2017). ´´ Russia’s role in regional cooperation and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)´´, Journal of Baltic Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01629778.2017.1305186.
McMaster, I. and Van der Zwet, A. (2016). ´´Macro-regions and the European Union: The Role of Cohesion Policy´´. In: Gänzle, S. and Kern, K. (Eds) A ´Macro-regional´ Europe in the Making: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence, 47-72. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Meyer, C.B. (2001). ´´A case in case study methodology´´, Field methods, 13 (4): 329-352. NonHazCity (Non Hazardous City) (2017). ´´NonHazCity´´, http://nonhazcity.eu/about/.
Accessed on May 23rd 2017.
Ozolina, Z., Reinholde, I. and Rostoks, T. (Eds) (2010). EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: A Year After and Beyond. Riga: Zinatne.
