Geopolitics of the baltic sea

In December 2007, the European Council published the conclusions of its Presidency, inviting the European Commission to submit an EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region no later than June 2009. Until then, the European Parliament had only called for a strategy to address the urgent environmental problems of the Baltic Sea. The Commission presented its Communication on the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) on 10 June 2009 with a detailed action plan. They were approved by the European Council in October 2009 and thus the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region became the first EU macro-regional strategy.

In 2012, the Commission identified three broad goals for the Strategy: "Save the Sea", "Connect the Region" and "Increase Prosperity". In addition, the Commission suggested setting measurable indicators and targets for each target. To reflect these changes, the action plan was updated in 2013 in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy.

After extensive consultation with Member States, the Action Plan was updated in 2015. Thanks to the update, the strategy has become more streamlined and focused on three main goals. In 2017, the Action Plan was revised with some technical updates and corrections, an updated chapter on Transport in Politics, a new item on Education in Politics, and a section in the Management chapter describing the procedure for changing thematic coordinators.

The current version of the Action Plan came into force in 2021. The revised Action Plan is more focused and takes into account emerging global challenges, the new EU strategic framework and the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, as well as the challenges of the Strategy. The revised Action Plan also contains references for "embedding" the Strategy into the policies and funding programs of the EU.

The area covered by the Strategy is mainly the Baltic Sea basin, including also inland areas. It has about 85 million inhabitants, including 8 EU member states (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden) as well as Russia.

Eight of the nine countries bordering the Baltic Sea are members of the European Union, and new opportunities for better coordination have ensured a higher standard of living for the citizens of these member states. However, even with good international and interregional communication and cooperation, the new benefits of EU membership have not been fully realized, and the problems of the region have not yet been resolved. The Baltic Sea Region (BSR) is very diverse in terms of economy, nature and culture.

Member states share many common resources and are interdependent. This means that actions taken in one area can quickly bring results in other areas or affect the region as a whole.

The EU BSR area "Energy" policy, coordinated by BEMIP, Lithuania and Latvia, aims to ensure competitive, reliable and sustainable energy in the Baltic Sea Region.

Regional cooperation in the energy sector is based on the Baltic Energy Markets Interconnection Plan (BEMIP), which covers energy infrastructure, gas and electricity markets, energy production, energy supply security, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. In the area of electricity and gas markets, the focus is on creating an open, competitive and fully integrated regional energy market in the Baltic Sea Region.

In the energy sector, Lithuania is entrusted with the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources in order to achieve the EU strategic goals in this area (coordinated with Latvia).

An initiative is currently underway to create an Energy Efficiency Platform to promote cross-border cooperation among the Baltic Sea States in achieving the EU's energy efficiency goals.

When evaluating the implementation of the Strategy, one should pay attention to three “points”.

Firstly, the fact that the scope of the Strategy was drawn up by the European Council influenced the way the discussion was conducted in this region. The text of the document focuses on solving environmental problems, especially those related to shipping. The Council's conclusion calls for an effective separation of the internal and external spheres of policy. This provision contradicts the already existing experience in solving the most pressing problems of the Baltic Sea, including environmental ones, as well as shipping issues of a transnational and transboundary nature, thereby by definition including states that are not members of the EU.

Secondly, differences that concern management seem to be important. The European Commission has proposed a Strategy which should coordinate the existing items, as well as carefully monitor and review achievements, needs and challenges, aiming to maintain the momentum of the Action Plan as a result. In the resolution, Parliament called for a very different solution: partly through its proposal to hold annual summits of the Baltic Sea states prior to the summer meeting of the European Council and to expand regional organizations within and outside the EU system.

The last important conclusion was the process of work to improve the Strategy. The process of public consultations, which took place from August 2008 to February 2009, was designed not only to improve the Strategy, but also to facilitate the process of its approval. The consultations involved states, regions, a number of non-governmental and international governmental organizations, as well as individual citizens. During various meetings, the Strategy was able to highlight the basic positions shared by a significant majority of participants:

• The absolute need for a Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region,
• The need for an integrated approach to deliver results,
• The important role of the European Commission in the development of the Strategy,
• Focus on specific projects to get real results,
• The absence of the need to create new institutions, given the presence of a significant number of existing organizations,
• The desire to go beyond empty declarations and work with leading countries with specific goals and clearly defined deadlines.

It is worth noting the role of studying the experience of NATO in the Baltic Sea region. It is that with the end of the Cold War bipolarity, the European security system is increasingly fragmented along regional lines, often reflecting historical fractures and traditional patterns of cooperation and conflict. During the Cold War, NATO members such as Norway and Turkey shared a common national security concern - the perceived Soviet threat. Whatever the differences in the geostrategic situation, this posed a common problem for them, which served as the basis for cooperation in the field of security within the Alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, the national security interests of Norway and Turkey have focused on their specific regional issues, which, by the way, they are very different. Across Europe, the regionalization of the security agenda is evident. In Southeastern Europe, the traditional "Balkan" rivalry has reemerged, along with new problems of state and nation building. This is what gives international relations in this troubled region a special - and very bloody - character.

Developments in the field of security in the Baltic Sea area show the same trend: the desire for the regionalization of European security. The states of the Baltic Sea region share common concerns about regional security stemming from different models of cooperation in the region. In this sense, they are part of the regional "security complex".
The main threats to the biodiversity of the Baltic Sea are as follows.

Eutrophication. It has led to an increase in the number of planktonic algae, an increase in the frequency of poisonous algal blooms, and a decrease in oxygen levels in the deep waters of the Baltic Sea.
Fisheries. Fisheries for key fish species such as cod, herring, salmon and eel are currently unsustainable due to overexploitation and deteriorating breeding conditions. The by-catch of marine mammals, seabirds and non-target fish species is too high.

Pollution with harmful substances and oil. Organic pollutants cause health and reproduction problems for marine mammals and birds.

Introduction of non-native species. Changes in the structure and components of the ecosystem are caused by introduced species. Intentional introduction, fouling and ballast water are three important pathways for organisms to enter the Baltic Sea. River connections with the brackish waters of the Black and Caspian Seas increase the risk of introductions from these areas.

Thus, the Baltic Monitoring Program (BPM) was introduced. The objectives of the Cooperative Monitoring of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea (COMBINE) are to identify and quantify the effects of anthropogenic discharges/activities in the Baltic Sea in the context of natural changes in the system, and to identify and quantify changes in the environment through regulatory actions. The program includes hydrographic measurements, the impact of anthropogenic nutrient inputs on marine biota, levels of pollutants in individual organisms, and the impact of pollutants on community structure.

The Baltic Monitoring Program, as part of COMBINE, is implemented by the Helsinki Commission. The monitoring program provides a good basis for developing a general idea of the environmental conditions in the Baltic Sea and ways to improve them. In addition, bilateral agreements have been signed covering environmental monitoring of parts of the Baltic Sea, such as the Gulf of Bothnia between Finland and Sweden and the Sound between Denmark and Sweden. Denmark, Norway and Sweden cooperate in the Kattegat and Skagerrak. These programs provide some temporary compensation for the lack of monitoring programs in the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) themselves.

Of course, the Kaliningrad region and Russia as a whole are now both a challenge and a far-fetched threat for the EU countries with access to the Baltic. Lithuania's inadequate actions have already led to a new hotbed of tension. Other provocations are also possible. In response, Russia could take measures that could potentially undermine the EU's Baltic Strategy, which could make both the Baltic countries and Brussels more prudent.

Translated by Alessandro Napoli

Source