First draft submitted 3rd March 2006


Conclusions General Conclusions



Download 1.14 Mb.
Page8/12
Date02.06.2018
Size1.14 Mb.
#52945
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12

Conclusions




    1. General Conclusions

As can be seen from the assessment above, INTERREG has been an important – if not the most important – facility for financing transnational projects, which support and enhance the implementation of the Baltic 21 Action programme.


At the same time it has to be noted that the linkage between the two initiatives could be much stronger. It is understood that the underlying reasons for this can be found in the original set-up of the INTERREG programme as well as the Baltic 21 strategy, which only changed its mandate during the course of the current INTERREG programme. By the time the INTERREG programme was drafted, however, Baltic 21 did not clearly pursue the aim to use this facility for its purposes and to support Baltic 21 Lighthouse projects.
Nevertheless it should be noted that all INTERREG projects clearly take sustainable development criteria into account. As such all projects linked for instance to the transport, tourism or spatial planning sectors seem to follow the basic objective to find a balance between utilisation and preservation of natural resources while promoting the economic and social development of the region. In many cases it seems that INTERREG opened an opportunity to carry out in-depth studies, public participation processes and to develop and use new – international applicable - tools (such as GIS) with which it was only possible to assess the medium- or long-term impacts of various initiatives on multi-sector level. With the help of the programme not only cross-sectoral but also cross-country assessments based on natural rather than political borders have been facilitated. As such INTERREG has already greatly enhanced the sustainable development of the Baltic Sea Region.
On the other hand only around 20 INTERREG projects could really be directly linked to specific Baltic 21 actions and of those only nine are highly relevant to those actions. This means in other words that less than 10 percent of INTERREG projects directly target issues related to sustainable development as understood by Baltic 21.
At the same time it should be noted that these are also most often those projects, which have been initiated and driven by Baltic 21 member organisations. It seems that once Baltic 21 sectors/members developed and submitted a project, they were highly successful in getting the funding via INTERREG sources.
Given the fact that INTERREG is a demand driven programme – which is based on projects developed by the regions/organisations of the BSR itself – it could therefore be argued that the reasons for the low rate of Baltic 21 related projects within INTERREG is not only to be found within its programme structure but also the fact that Baltic 21 itself did not pursue project development pro-actively within the first years of the existence of the INTERREG programme.
In terms of quality output for Baltic 21 related matters the assessment as presented in the previous chapter (see 4) shows that in terms of impact achieved only the two LHP projects “BaltCoast” and “New Hansa” have led to new, agreed policy frameworks within the BSR and in the case of BaltCoast even to a first-ever BSR wide overview on offshore activities. As with most other INTERREG projects the implementation of these policy frameworks will only follow in the upcoming years.
The clear link between Baltic 21 LHP projects and policy impact on sustainable development also leads to the conclusion that Baltic 21 initiated projects have often the advantage that they are not only supported by the responsible national / regional ministries, but also include them often as project partners. Thus a dialogue between local, regional and national level is already ensured within the projects themselves, which apparently leads to faster results.

This finding is also underlined by VASAB in its new policy paper “Connecting Potentials”, which calls for a stronger involvement of transnational bodies and national authorities within the future programme in order to give guidance on such issues and to help with the multiplication of results.


In terms of newly approved projects – especially the last two approval rounds – have led to a much greater proportion of projects directly linked to sustainable development issues, which are also expected to produce comprehensive sets of policy recommendations, tools and best practice cases in the area of tourism, forest management, city transport, energy efficiency in buildings, administrative structures enhancing sustainable development, waste management, etc.
Even though many of those newer projects are related to Baltic 21 structures not all of them have currently applied for LHP status. In the following it is suggested that some of them are upgraded to LHP status in retrospect – as to emphasise the importance Baltic 21 attaches to them. Furthermore a LHP status for those projects (in accordance to the newly amended LHP criteria) would open the possibility to Baltic 21 to integrate activities and results of those projects into the Baltic 21 processes.

    1. Summary of Gaps identified

      1. Introduction

As could be noted from the detailed sector related assessment provided in previous chapters, great disparities exist in terms of absolute number of INTERREG projects related to the various Baltic 21 sectors / joint actions.


Whereas a great number of INTERREG projects have supported activities in the area of tourism, transport and spatial planning, only a tiny fraction could be linked to the agriculture, education, fishery, forest and industry sectors. In terms of joint actions only the area of city cooperation has really been a target of INTERREG projects. With nine macro-region projects the programme can also be linked to joint action 2, which stresses the importance of regional fora and networks for sustainable development. It has to be noted, however, that sustainable development has not been the focus of the work of the networks established within these macro-regions. The goals of the Baltic 21 energy sector and bio-energy joint action have been reflected in all seven energy related INTERREG projects, even though none of them have been initiated or developed by Baltic 21 related structures.
The disparity in absolute project numbers per sector/joint action does not necessarily mean, that gaps are largest in those sectors/actions, where only a small number of projects have been implemented. Sectors, where projects have been initiated and developed by Baltic 21 itself, obviously show the greatest correlation between INTERREG project objectives and Baltic 21 action lines. In some cases one Baltic 21 (LHP) project financed under INTERREG was sufficient in order to enhance the Baltic 21 sectors goals.

      1. Joint Action Gaps



JO1 “Increased production and use of bioenergy and other renewable energy” has been enhanced by INTERREG in terms of network creation (bioenergy development centre network, Baltic-biomass network, wind-energy-network) and development of tools/strategies related to investment and spatial planning. No projects have so far been implemented in area of solar energy, biogas or wood based energy (here despite the forest sector projects). Policy change – especially in the new democracies – has not been covered by any of the projects so far (apart from the energy related BEEN project) nor production and consumption aspects for energy crops.
JO2 “Use of regional fora and networks for sustainable development” has not been supported directly by any of the INTERREG initiatives. On the other hand there is certainly potential to build on the macro-regional network and communication structures established within the framework of the programme and to use them as a basis for continued co-operation and sustainability awareness raising. Thus BSSSC and/or BLAF21 as leaders of JO2 could act as an umbrella to those various regional initiatives. Thus it could be ensured that the various regional initiatives would a) put the environmental aspects of sustainable development more into the forefront of their activities and b) could exchange experience on the local activities pursued in this field.
JO3 “Demonstration areas and pilot projects” has not specifically been covered under the previous assessment as it is not an area to be covered by INTERREG but by Baltic 21 itself. Overall the assessment has, however, shown (see chapter 4) only few projects have reached the stage of visible pilot/demonstration areas and mainly concentrate on planning/studies. However, in order to promote the “Eco-Baltic Sea Region” it is of greatest importance to highlight visible results. The assessment process itself of the INTERREG projects related to sustainable development as such has, however, shown there is a great need for a targeted public relations/dissemination exercise, in which visible results related to sustainable development are summarised among all sectors and made easily accessible to a wide target audience. Currently information is too much focused on project level and not further processed in view of disseminating results achieved across individual projects.
JO4 “City co-operation on sustainable development issues” has very much been fostered by INTERREG projects especially with regard to public transport systems and waste handling. Most of these targeted efforts, however, fall into the last application period and have therefore not led to many demonstrable results. Based on the Baltic 21 Action Programme the area of energy resource use and systems is still an area for common activities. Furthermore a future challenge will be in the realisation and continuation of activities started under previous project rounds. Generally it has to be noted that no urgent gap seems to appear in this field.
JO5 “Procurement of technologies for sustainable development” has hardly been tackled by INTERREG projects so far. A real gap can be noted here and should certainly be pursued in future efforts as the joint action is focused on regional processes for procurement activities and thus corresponds highly with INTERREG target groups.
JO6 “Information on sustainable development” has not been systematically been covered under any of the INTERREG projects. As shown above only a few projects have so far enhanced the process of a coherent BSR data and information facility. It remains to be seen, however, whether such an action should be tackled on a sectoral level or in a cross-sectoral approach via for instance a Baltic Sustainable Development Research Network (see below 5.3.4). Furthermore it would need to be assessed whether such an activity should be placed under an INTERREG (i.e. its future equivalent) project or rather an ESPON facilitated project.
JO7 “Increasing consumer awareness of sustainable development” has been tackled by one key INTERREG project based on the nature centre / environmental interpretation network. Given the magnitude of such task, there is still great room to develop projects in this field based on different sets of project partners and target groups (i.e. consumer groups).

      1. Sector Action Gaps



Agriculture is among the most neglected sectors throughout the current INTERREG projects. None of the Baltic 21 action lines has therefore substantially been enhanced. Especially in view of the new EU E-BSR member states this sector poses a great gap to be filled in the future not only in education and training but also legislation and policy.
Education for sustainable development is targeted by two INTERREG projects related a) to university and administrative staff and b) to young people as well as a general audience via nature centres and environmental information. Furthermore all projects include wide scale experience exchange activities and therefore enhance education on sustainable development. Nevertheless – due its broad scale – it is one of the Baltic 21 sectors which still calls for a far more extensive input and needs to be enhanced with further Baltic 21 specific input.
Energy Baltic 21 related actions were underlined by INTERREG projects especially in supporting increased use of renewable energy sources and promoting increased energy efficiency and energy savings. Nevertheless clear gaps still exist when it comes to co-operation between authorities as well as research & development. Furthermore common approaches to energy savings / efficiency measures have so far only covered voluntary industry based initiatives as well as pre-fabricated building blocks. The establishment of a regional “savings and efficiency market” is still a project gap to be filled as well.
Fishery Baltic 21 actions have not been underlined directly by any of the INTERREG projects. Nevertheless it should be noted that most of the coastal zone related projects have also dealt with the question of the fishery sector. Whereas some of the action lines13 seem difficult to be translated into project activities, other actions related to fishery in inland waters and sustainable aquaculture are well suited for regional project structures and open gaps within INTERREG even though both topics have already been tackled by other project structures (InterregIIIC).
Forestry Baltic 21 actions as defined before autumn 2005 are currently well covered by INTERREG due to the Baltic 21 own LHP Baltic Forest project, which has only recently been started. On the other hand the Baltic 21 forest sector itself has identified new gaps to be filled as laid down in its new Action Programme approved in November 2005. In addition to the four priority areas (sustainable private forestry, multiple use of forestry, transparent timber flows and increase use of wood) and its corresponding eleven activity lines, attention should also be paid towards the gap identified under energy related to the “increased use of forests and forest residuals as an energy source”.
Industry Baltic 21 actions have only marginally been covered by INTERREG despite the highly relevant Baltic 21 industry supported projects EcoBaltica and RECO. Thus there are still a large number of important gaps to be filled in the area of improving the framework for business operations, developing eco-efficiency tools for different industries as well as technology transfer and research & development.
Tourism Baltic 21 actions are currently well covered through the Baltic 21 tourism sector initiated LHP project AGORA financed under the INTERREG programme. However, it needs to be noted that the project will lead to policy recommendations, but is not providing for implementation and enforcement of legislation.
Transport Baltic 21 actions have greatly been enhanced by the transport related INTERREG projects despite the fact that none of them occurred under Baltic 21 member auspices. Apart from the still existing enormous gap towards E-BSR accessibility, there also seems to be a gap in creating an overall umbrella for these projects, It remains to be seen, however, whether EU wide networks are already sufficiently providing for an umbrella for these projects or whether the Baltic 21 Transport sector as such could offer such kind of function, where for instance experience is exchanged on the variety of tools developed and discussion held on BSR specific conditions.

      1. Spatial Planning Action Gaps

Remaining spatial planning action gaps have been analysed by VASAB itself within its new Policy Document “Connecting Potentials” (Gdansk, 2005). VASAB sees a need to focus future work on a) networking among cities, b) environmentally friendly transport modes and c) transnational development zones in order to connect potentials and thereby increase spatial integration of the BSR.


More specifically it calls for a the development of functionally complementary profiles of cities like Minsk and Kaliningrad based on good practice examples already developed. Furthermore it stresses the importance of efficient networking and the creation of a critical mass for development. This policy should also consider co-operation of smaller cities and rural-urban co-operation over state borders. Regional institutions of higher education need to be strengthened and their co-operation across the BSR with financial flows being channelled towards the most promising transnational clusters. The identification of such clusters could be one of the BSR-oriented research, especially in framework of ESPON 2013 programmes / studies (see also new LHP Themes: 5.3.4).
Despite the multitude of efforts undertaken in the transport sector, VASAB still sees the missing links and poor condition of infrastructure in the Eastern BSR as a major barrier to the spatial integration of the BSR. Furthermore particular attention needs to be paid to the issues of maritime safety when developing the sea transport in the intensively used and shallow Baltic Sea.
The most apparent gap in the further promotion of transnational development zones is seen by VASAB in regions crossing EU external borders (Russia) with large economic differences among their partners. These zones shall be further developed for the elaboration of innovation strategies (see following chapter on new LHP Themes: 5.3.3). Similar to the assessment provided under JO2 “Regional Fora” also VASAB stresses the need for transnational development zones to contribute in the future more strongly to a high quality environment in the BSR.
As regards to the management and planning of the sea and coast also VASAB stresses the need to implement the ICZM recommendations as provided in the current INTERREG projects and calls for the preparation of spatial plans for offshore areas, wherever appropriate, and a cross-sectoral assessment of specific offshore projects.



    1. Download 1.14 Mb.

      Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
european union
rapid growth
further development
following report
following priorities