Page 1

Master  de  Sciences  et  Technologies   Mention  Aménagement,  Urbanisme  et  Développement  des  Territoires   Spécialité:  Eurostudies  



GGddaannsskk   PPoom moorrsskkiiee    RReeggiioonn     PPoollaanndd    


Elsa BERGERY   2015-­‐2016  

University tutor:  François-­‐Olivier  SEYS   Professional  tutor:  Vassilen  IOTZOV   Joint  Secretariat  of  the  Interreg  South   Baltic  Programme    

Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  


      Firstly  I  would  like  to  express  my  sincere  gratitude  to  all  the  Joint  Secretariat  Staff  for   their  warm  welcome,  their  support  and  their  knowledge.  I  am  particularly  grateful  to   Vassilen  Iotzov  that  made  my  internship  possible,  and  introduced  me  in  the  office.     I  would  like  also  to  address  my  gratitude  to  Robert  Mazurkiewicz  that  shared  with  me   his  geographical,  political  and  European  immense  knowledge,  and  to  Thorsten  Kohlisch   for  his  guidance.     At  last  but  not  least,  I  am  thankful  to  Clea  Samson  for  her  proofreading.      


TERRITORIAL COHESION  IN  THE  SOUTH  BALTIC  REGION:   The  example  of  transport  policies  within  Interreg  cross-­‐ border  cooperation    

CONTENTS   INTRODUCTION  ..........................................................................................................................................  5     RESEARCH  METHODOLOGY  .................................................................................................................  11    

I. A  COMPLEX  PROGRAMME  AREA  COMPRISING  BOTH  DISPARITIES  AND   COOPERATION  TOOLS:  HOW  TO  FOSTER  COOPERATION  ON  ACCESSIBILITY  ISSUE   IN  THE  SOUTH  BALTIC  ................................................................................................................  13   A.   A  region  comprising  common  issues  despite  complex  geopolitical  stakes  shaped  by   History  ........................................................................................................................................................  13   1)   A  region  shaped  by  its  historical  past:  can  we  talk  about  a  Baltic  region?  ..........................  13   2)   Different  visions  of  planning  and  sustainable  transports  across  the  South  Baltic  Region   17   3)   Overview  of  the  common  issues  linked  with  regional  accessibility  .......................................  21   B.   The  EU  supporting  the  accessibility  issue  on  different  scales:  from  Europe  to  the   South  Baltic  Region  .................................................................................................................................  24   1)   The  importance  of  the  transport  issue  in  economic  development  and  EU  integration  .  24   2)   The  role  of  Pan-­‐Baltic  institutions  and  European  strategy  in  accessibility  policies  for   the  Baltic  Sea  Region  .............................................................................................................................................  28   3)   Questioning  the  relevance  of  the  South  Baltic  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  accessibility   issues  ............................................................................................................................................................................  31    

II. ANALYSIS  OF  CROSS-­‐BORDER  PROJECTS  IMPLEMENTATION  FOSTERING   HARMONISATION  OF  TRANSPORTS  AND  SUSTAINABILITY  ...........................................  35   A.   A  programme  trying  to  improve  and  harmonise  accessibility  across  the  South  Baltic   region  ..........................................................................................................................................................  35   1)   Overall  analysis  of  the  projects  directly  dealing  with  transport  accessibility  –   quantitative  approach  ..........................................................................................................................................  35   2)   Testing  the  efficiency  of  the  multimodal  maritime  access:  the  INTERFACE  projects  .....  37   3)   Harmonisation  of  a  small  airport  network:  the  South  Baltic  Global  Access  project  ........  41   B.   A  programme  trying  to  foster  and  harmonise  sustainable  and  green  mobility   models  .........................................................................................................................................................  45   1)   Implementing  Electric  Mobility  solutions:  the  ELMOS  project  .................................................  45   2)   Spreading  cycling-­‐friendly  practices:  the  ABC.MULTIMODAL  project  ..................................  48   3)   Cross-­‐border  cooperation  to  limit  the  sulphur  pollution  in  the  SBR:  the  MarTech  LNG   project  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  52     3    

Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme    

III. THE  NEW  REALITY  OF  COOPERATION  IN  THE  SOUTH  BALTIC  REGION:   BETWEEN  STREAMLINING  AND  CHALLENGES  OF  TRANSPORT  ISSUES  .....................  56   A.   A  streamlined  South  Baltic  Programme  responding  to  common  issues  for  the  2014-­‐ 2020  period  ...............................................................................................................................................  56   1)   The  elaboration  process  of  the  South  Baltic  Programme  as  a  mirror  of  divergences  and   common  issues  ........................................................................................................................................................  56   2)   The  complex  but  streamlined  organisation  of  the  decision-­‐making  process  .....................  58   3)   A  streamlined  programming  with  Interreg  V:  what  impact  on  the  transport  policy?  ....  63   B.   The  remaining  challenges  in  cooperation  for  Territorial  Cohesion  in  the  South   Baltic  Region  .............................................................................................................................................  66   1)   Internal  challenges  during  the  implementation  of  the  South  Baltic  programme  .............  66   2)   Geopolitical  challenges:  Kaliningrad  as  a  barrier  for  internal  accessibility  ........................  68   3)   Institutional  challenges  concerning  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  the   EU  structural  policies  ............................................................................................................................................  72     CONCLUSION  .............................................................................................................................................  76     ANNEXE  I  –  TABLES  .................................................................................................................................  78   ANNEXE  II  –  ADDITIONAL  ILLUSTRATIONS  ....................................................................................  83   ANNEXE  III  –  REGULATIONS  .................................................................................................................  89   ANNEXE  IV  –  INTERVIEWS  ....................................................................................................................  93  



INTRODUCTION Gdansk,   a   city   of   commerce   since   its   oldest   settlements   in   the   9th   century,   is   representing   alone   most   of   the   History,   cultures   and   diversities   of   the   Baltic   region.   Indeed,   one   can   there   find   Arabic   coins   from   the   9th   century,   old   Prussian   statues,   traces   of   amber   from   the   Baltic,   Lithuanian   pinewood,   wheat   from   Poland   and   Ukraine,   and   much  more.  This  strategic  place  located  in  Northern  Poland,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Vistula   River,   South   of   the   Baltic   Sea,   and   surrounded   Nordic,   Germanic   and   Slavic   cultures,   sits   on   the   traditional   Amber   Road   between   Northern   and   Southern   Europe,   between   Western   Europe   and   Asia.   The   alternating   domination   by   Poles,   Teutonic   Knights   and   Prussia,   as   well   as   its   Hanseatic   League   membership,   make   Gdansk   a   city   with   a   rich   historical   past   crossing   different   people   and   cultures.   Unfortunately,   it   has   also   been   a   place  of  conflict  during  the  two  World  Wars.   Today   Gdansk   is   the   principal   seaport   of   Poland   and   the   conurbation   called   the   Tricity  (Trojmiasto)  counts  a  population  nearing  1  400  000  inhabitants  when  taking  into   account  the  cities  of  Gdansk,  Gdynia  and  Sopot  all  together.  It  is  also  home  to  the  Joint   Secretariat  (JS)  of  the  Interreg  cross-­‐border  cooperation  programme  for  the  South  Baltic   Region   (SBR).   This   programme,   under   the   responsibility   of   the   European   Union   (EU),   aims   to   implement   cross-­‐border   projects   in   a   precise   programme   area   comprising   the   small   regions   connected   to   the   sea   from   five   countries   around   the   South   Baltic   Region   (SBR):   Germany,   Denmark,   Sweden,   Lithuania   and   Poland   (see   map   at   the   end   of   the   introduction).  This  kind  of  cooperation  acts  as  a  tool  for  the  Regional  Policy  directed  by   a  branch  of  the  EU  Commission,  the  Directorate  General  for  Regional  Policy  (DG  Regio)   and   “aims   to   tackle   common   challenges   identified   jointly   in   the   border   regions   and   to   exploit   the   untapped   growth   potential   in   border   areas,   while   enhancing   the   cooperation   process  for  the  purposes  of  the  overall  harmonious  development  of  the  Union”1.   Thus   this   programme  has  two  main  goals:  firstly,  to  develop  the  potential  of  cross-­‐border  regions   that  are  often  lagging  behind  the  economical  centre  of  each  state,  through  cooperation   between  neighbouring  countries;  secondly,  to  enhance  the  harmony  of  the  EU  territory   through  the  development  of  Territorial  Cohesion.     Indeed,   because   of   its   very   particular   historical   past,   the   EU   territory   is   shows   significant   socio-­‐economical   differences   and   disparities   between   Member   States.   Obviously   every   country   is   characterised   by   its   own   History,   issues,   economic   development  and  domestic  territorial  planning.  And  if  these  differences  already  existed   at  the  set  up  of  the  Rome  Treaty  in  1957,  they  turned  out  to  be  more  obvious  when  the   European  Economic  Community  (EEC),  and  then  the  EU,  welcomed  new  countries  in  the   Union.   Today,   differences   of   mentalities   and   systems   are   still   very   manifest   between   Northern   countries,   Mediterranean   countries,   Western   Europe,   and   Eastern   Europe.   In   this   context,   the   South   Baltic   region   is   quite   particular   because   it   gathers   countries   from   very   different   zones   and   cultures.   Poland   and   Lithuania   may   be   considered   as   Eastern                                                                                                                           1

EUROPEAN  COMMISSION,  Official  Website,  “Regional  Policy  “-­‐(accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐15)  -­‐­‐territorial/cross-­‐border/      


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

countries, with   soviet   influences   up   until   the   1990’s,   and   important   economic   lags   in   comparison  to  the  rest  of  the  EU.  Denmark  and  Sweden,  on  the  other  hand,  belong  to  the   family   of   Scandinavian   countries,   considered   in   Europe   as   having   some   of   the   most   developed  economies  and  environmental  friendly  policies.  Further,  Germany,  situated  in   central   Europe,   is   the   most   powerful   economy   in   the   EU   yet   still   shows   a   heterogeneous   development   within   its   territory.   For   example,   the   Mecklenburg-­‐Vorpommern   region,   included   in   the   South   Baltic   programme,   used   to   belong   to   the   communist   block   and   today   still   lags   behind   the   rest   of   Germany.   Thus   we   can   see   that   the   SBR   countries   involved   in   the   programme   show   undeniable   gaps,   whether   on   the   economic,   demographic,   cultural   or   historical   level.   Nevertheless,   all   those   regions   share   some   common   points:   these   are   maritime   regions,   on   peripheral   parts   of   their   respective   states,  counting  on  the  maritime  economy,  and  experiencing  similar  issues  of  pollution   (the   Baltic   Sea   is   the   most   polluted   sea   in   Europe).   Further,   in   addition   to   being   externally   located   within   their   respective   countries,   the   entirety   of   the   SBR   regions   is   considered   peripheral   to   Europe's   economic   centre.   Therefore   one   can   say   that   all   regions  of  the  SBR  have  common  issues  linked  to  accessibility  and  the  environment.     In  the  geographical  context,  accessibility  is  considered  as  the    “direct  expression  of   mobility  either  in  terms  of  people,  freight  or  information.  This  mobility  is  a  choice  made  by   users   and   is   therefore   a   mean   to   evaluate   the   impacts   of   infrastructure   investment   and   related  transport  policies  on  regional  development”,   according   to   the   definition   of   Jean-­‐ Paul   Rodrigue2.   Hence   we   can   assume   that   the   differences   in   economic   development   would   entail   certain   disparities   in   infrastructure   investments   and   differences   in   transport   policies.   Accessibility,   as   the   expression   of   mobility,   is   also   a   factor   of   economic  development  because  it  allows  goods,  people  and  information  to  travel  from  a   place   to   another,   increasing   exchange   and   connectivity.   Consequently,   we   may   see   differences  in  transport  infrastructure  development  across  the  SBR,  especially  between   Eastern   and   Western   countries.   We   can   therefore   observe   an   accessibility   problem   on   numerous   scales:   a   limited   external   accessibility   throughout   the   SBR,   and   a   limited   regional  or  internal  accessibility  due  to  the  separation  of  countries  by  the  sea  and  their   different  levels  of  development  and  technology.     Moreover,  we  know  that  transport  is  now  highly  connected  to  environmental  and   sustainability  issues.  Indeed,  the  current  context  of  global  warming  and  marine  pollution   prompts   authorities   and   investors   to   support   environmental   friendly   means   of   transportation.   Further   one   may   observe   that   being   more   sustainable   in   an   effort   that   demands   for   financial   investment   in   research,   development   and   new   technologies,   which   may   not   be   equal   throughout   the   SBR   countries.   That   is   why   we   define   three   requirements   in   the   connectivity   issue   of   the   region:     external   accessibility,   regional   connections,  and  transport  sustainability.  However,  such  issues,  belonging  to  the  cross-­‐ border   and   maritime   characters   of   these   regions,   can   be   tackled   only   by   cooperation                                                                                                                           2


RODRIGUE  Jean-­‐Paul  et  al.,  2013,  The  Geography  of  Transport  Systems,  3  edition,  Routledge,  London  &  New   York,  416  p.,  p.3.  


between the   neighbouring   countries.   In   this   context,   and   when   considering   the   important   disparities   in   development,   perspectives   and   point   of   views   between   the   concerned   countries,   such   EU   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programme   might   seem   challenging   and   difficult.   But   the   South   Baltic   programme   remains   a   necessary   tool   of   “harmonious   development”   and   a   relevant   instrument   that   uses   cooperation   in   the   perspective  of  enhancing  accessibility.   Gdansk,   the   Polish   city   hosting   the   JS,   is   not   only   the   biggest   urban   area   of   the   programme   but   also   a   symbol.   Indeed,   the   particular   multicultural   history   of   the   city,   combined   with   its   identity   as   a   port   and   industrial   hub,   highlights   the   relevance   of   maritime,  external  and  regional  accessibility  as  well  as  the  environmental  imperatives  in   play.   The   JS,   from   Gdansk,   has   to   coordinate   the   technical   aspects   of   the   South   Baltic   programme.   Composed   of   several   Project   Officers,   Communication   agent,   or   managers   (all   of   them   being   EU   staff),   the   JS   oversees   communication,   information   and   technical   management   of   the   programme.   Interreg,   created   in   the   South   Baltic   in   2007   and   financed  by  the  EU  fund  called  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  operates   in  the  form  of  6-­‐years  long  programming  periods  (Interreg  IV  in  2007-­‐2013,  Interreg  V   in   2014-­‐2020).   Projects   that   will   be   supported   by   the   programme   are   studied   and   assessed   by   the   JS   but   the   Monitoring   Committee   of   the   programme   makes   the   final   decision.   Consequently,   each   programming   period   dedicates   ERDF   funds   to   help   the   implementation   of   cross-­‐border   projects   that   answer   directly   to   the   imperatives   from   the   DG   Region.   Therefore,   the   South   Baltic   programme   is   a   tool   of   harmonisation   managed  by  the  EU,  but  presents  real  solutions  for  local  problems.   Based   on   a   precise   area,   the   programme   refers   to   the   Baltic   Sea   as   a   common   criterion,   which   encloses   the   South   Baltic   area   within   a   larger   region   called   the   Baltic   Sea   Region   (BSR).   In   this   sense,   the   EU   policy,   based   on   a   particular   definition   of   region,   reshapes   territories   in   order   to   implement   its   own   territorial   policy.   According   to   the   definition  of  Lars  Rydén,  when  talking  about  the  South  Baltic  Region  and  the  Baltic  Sea   Region,   one   will   not   talk   about   the   region   as   part   of   a   state   (such   as   a   province)   but   will   rather  refer  to  “an  area  that  consists  of  several  states  or  parts  of  states”.  And  as  “there  is   not  in  itself  an  absolute  criterion  of  presence  or  absence  of  regionality,  and  that  there  are   many   other   ways   to   see   the   relevance   of   regions” 3 ,   we   will   consider   these   regions   according   to   the   programme   areas   determined   by   the   different   territorial   and   cross-­‐ border   European   programmes.   Thus,   the   programme   area   of   Interreg   South   Baltic   counts  8.9  million  inhabitants  spread  around  the  five  countries'  maritime  regions.   Nowadays,   the   European   notions   of   territorial   policy   and   spatial   planning   are   becoming   more   and   more   important   as   we   may   notice   for   the   first   time   in   the   EU   History,   with   the   Amsterdam   Treaty   of   1997's   statement   that   the   Community   and   the                                                                                                                           3

RYDÉN  Lars,  2002,  “The  Baltic  Sea  Region  and  the  relevance  of  regional  approaches”p.7-­‐29,  in  MACIEJEWSKI   Witold  (eds),  The  Baltic  Sea  Region  –  Cultures,  Politics,  Societies,  The  Baltic  University  Press,  Uppsala,  676p.  -­‐­‐materials/822-­‐the-­‐baltic-­‐sea-­‐region-­‐cultures-­‐politics-­‐societies   (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐16)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Member States   have   a   “role   in   promoting   social   and   territorial   cohesion”.   Since   this   moment,   the   EU's   influence   on   domestic   spatial   planning   systems   has   significantly   increased,   with   the   development   of   the   EU   legislations   on   environment,   security,   rules   o   industry,  and  so  forth.  At  the  same  time,  the  EU  has  steadily  set  up  an  important  number   of  cooperation  programmes  on  a  European,  regional  and  local  cross-­‐border  scale.  So  in   fact,   we   can   speak   about   a   European   “spatial   development   policy”   instead   of   using   the   term   “spatial   planning”,   often   referring   to   the   domestic   concerns,   regarding   the   definition   from   Stefanie   Dühr4.   The   spatial   development   in   the   EU   would   then   be   a   common  policy  of  European  territorial  planning,  aiming  at  enhancing  the  EU's  territorial   cohesion,   through   territorial   cooperation.   In   this   sense,   the   territorial   cooperation   fosters  cooperation  on  particular  regions  such  as  cross-­‐border  regions  or  transnational   regions,   in   order   to   tackle   specific   objectives.   Consequently,   transportation,   greatly   considered   as   a   tool   for   economic   development,   is   particularly   concerned   by   EU   territorial  policies.   In  this  case,  the  Interreg  South  Baltic  programme  is  a  tool  for  spatial  development   policy   because   it   is   based   on   a   cross-­‐border   territorial   cooperation   between   countries   that  face  similar  issues.  In  this  context,  we  assume  that  common  transportation  policies   or   projects,   enhancing   accessibility,   are   instruments   of   territorial   cohesion   because   they   might  reduce  transport-­‐planning  gaps  between  the  different  countries,  rebalance  modes   of  transportation  and  find  common  solutions  to  tackle  problems  of  external  accessibility.   In  this  way,  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  the  South  Baltic  region  could  be  a  real  tool  to   foster   both   internal   and   external   accessibility,   and   encourage   the   development   of   sustainable   transportation   in   countries   like   Poland   or   Lithuania.   However,   the   South   Baltic   programme   has   to   be   considered   as   a   small-­‐scale   programme   within   a   larger   panel   of   EU   cohesion   policies,   Regional   Baltic   programmes   and   institutions.   Moreover,   transport  planning  is  a  costly  field  calling  for  very  large  investments  and  policy  visions.   The  small  scale  of  such  a  program  might  therefore  make  it  more  difficult  to  assess  the   real   impact   it   can   have   on   territorial   cohesion,   especially   in   an   area   such   as   the   South   Baltic  Region  that  shows  high  disparities  and  differences  in  vision  between  its  members.   Nevertheless,   if   we   carefully   examine   the   projects   implemented   so   far   and   the   results   achieved,   we   clearly   see   that   the   Interreg   South   Baltic   cooperation   entails   tangible  advances  in  term  of  transportation  and  accessibility.  So  even  when  applied  on  a   relatively   small   scale,   we   can   argue   that   this   programme   tends   to   harmonise   transportation  means  and  policies  across  the  SBR,  as  it  supports  cross-­‐border  projects   that   tackle   common   issues   and   rebalance   disparities.   Moreover,   the   action   of   the   programme   is   in   fact   streamlined   step   by   step.   Indeed,   the   policy   on   transport   and   accessibility,   under   the   new   programming   period   of   Interreg   V   (2014-­‐2020),   has   been   greatly   improved   because   of   the   experience   gained   during   Interreg   IV   (2007-­‐2013).   Therefore,   this   thesis   will   aim   at   understanding   and   explaining   the   evolution   of   the                                                                                                                           4

DÜHR  Stefanie  et  al.,  2007,  “The  Europeanization  of  spatial  planning  through  territorial  cooperation”  in   Planning  Practice  &  Research,  Routledge  -­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐ 15)  


South Baltic   programme's   transportation   policy,   by   looking   at   its   tendency   to   increase   harmonisation  and  its  role  in  the  bettering  of  the  region's  territorial  cohesion.  In  order   to  keep  this  research  in  focus,  this  thesis  will  aim  at  answering  the  following  question:     To   what   extend,   and   despite   its   small   scale   and   geographically-­‐bound   inherent   challenges,   does   the   South   Baltic   Interreg   Program   participate   in   the   general   EU-­‐led   trend   of   transportation  policies  harmonisation?   In  order  to  answer  this  question,  the  first  part  of  this  thesis  will  be  dedicated  to   the  description  of  the  programme's  challenging  environment  and  the  difficulties  it  might   encounter.   Through   the   socio-­‐economic   disparities   of   the   region   and   the   multiple   cohesion   programmes   in   the   whole   Baltic   region,   we   will   see   that   the   South   Baltic   programme   can   however   be   considered   as   relevant   in   the   territorial   cohesion   of   the   region.  We  will,  in  a  second  part,  observe  and  analyse  how  the  programme,  through  the   implementation   of   projects   accessibility   and   sustainability   enhancing   projects,   fosters   harmonisation  within  the  South  Baltic  region.  Finally,  the  third  part  will  offer  an  insight   into   the   region's   new   reality   of   cooperation,   shared   between   the   streamlined   vision   of   the  cross-­‐border  programme  and  the  remaining  challenges  faced  by  South  Baltic  Region.  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Figure  1:  Map  of  the  eligible  area  of  the  South  Baltic  programme  for  Interreg  IV  (2007-­‐2013),  NUTS  III  regions       (Source:  Johanna  Roto,  Nordregio,  Nordic  Centre  for  Spatial  Development,  Nov  2012)  


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY   This  thesis  is  based  on  the  experience  gained  during  my  internship  achieved  from   the   January   until   the   8th   April   2016   in   the   Joint   Secretariat   of   the   South   Baltic   programme  based  in  Gdansk.  Regarding  my  mission,  which  was  attached  to  the  impact   analysis  of  the  projects  implemented  by  the  programme  Interreg  IV  (2007-­‐2013),  I  have   decided  to  orientate  my  thesis  on  the  effects  of  the  former  Interreg  programme.  Then  it   allowed  me  to  present  main  of  the  different  aspects  of  my  internship  and  the  different   aspects  of  the  JS  mission.  Only  at  the  end  I  decided  to  speak  about  the  new  programme   Interreg   IV   (2014-­‐2020)   because   it   seems   important   to   see   how   the   programme   implement  but  also  improve  itself  in  order  to  make  its  action  more  efficient  and  relevant   in  view  to  be  adapted  to  the  need  of  harmonisation   18th  

I went  step  by  step  to  the  following  conclusion:  the  SB  programme  participates,   among   other   European   programmes,   to   the   harmonisation   of   the   region.   However,   digging   into   the   scholar   researches   about   the   topic   of   EU   Territorial   Cohesion,   I   realised   that   most   of   the   programmes   explained   and   developed   were   the   large   scale   and   transnational  scale  programmes  that  are  much  larger  than  the  scale  of  the  South  Baltic   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programme.   In   this   context,   it   was   sometimes   hard   to   find   some   documentation   about   cross-­‐border   cooperation   in   particular,   in   the   scientific   collections.  That’s  why  many  of  my  sources  are  from  the  internal  documentation  of  the   South   Baltic   programme   or   the   EU.   I   realised   that   only   few   papers   were   treating   the   question   of   soft   cooperation   as   a   tool   of   sharing   knowledge.   Indeed   it   seems   hard   to   evaluate   quantitatively   the   results   of   such   small-­‐scale   programmes.   Hence,   my   researches   made   during   the   internship   helped   me   to   document   and   prove   my   argumentation.   About   the   scholar   sources,   I   based   most   my   definitions   about   EU   institutions   and   cooperation   system   on   the   work   of   Stefanie   Dühr   treating   the   question   of   Europeanization  through  spatial  planning.  Also,  most  of  the  information  about  the  socio-­‐ economic   patterns   of   the   Baltic   Region   and   its   History   are   from   the   long   book   The  Baltic   Sea   Region   –   Cultures,   Politics,   Societies,   directed   by   Witold   Maciejewski.   But   beyond   these  sources,  I  used  many  different  papers  from  English,  French,  Polish,  German,  Baltic,   or  Swedish  authors.      


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS       BSR   CBC   CBSS   CEF   CF   CP   DE   DG   DK   ELMO   EMU   ERDF     ESF   ESIF   EV   INEA   IP   JTS   LB   LNG   LT   MA   MC   OWE   PL   RSAG   RU   SBGA   SBR   SE   SME   SUMP   TEN-­‐T   TO   VASAB  

Baltic Sea  Region   Cross-­‐Border  Cooperation   Council  of  the  Baltic  Sea  States   Connecting  Europe  Facilities   Cohesion  Fund   Contact  Points   Germany   Directorate-­‐General  (executive  branch  of  the  EU   Denmark   Commission)   Electric  Mobility   Economic  and  Monetary  Union   European  Regional  Development  Fund   European  Structural  Fund   European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds   Electric  Vehicle   Innovation  and  Networks  Executive  Agency   Investment  Priorities   Joint  Technical  Secretariat   Lead  Beneficiary   Liquefied  Natural  Gas   Lithuania   Managing  Authority   Monitoring  Committee   Offshore  Wind  Energy   Poland   Rostock  Straβenbahn  AG   Russia   South  Baltic  Global  Access   South  Baltic  Region   Sweden   Small  or  Medium  Enterprise   Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans   Trans-­‐European  Transport  Network   Thematic  Objective   Visions  And  Strategies  Around  the  Baltic  Sea  





The   South   Baltic   Region   cannot   be   detached   from   the   whole   Baltic   Sea   Region,   therefore   most   of   the   stakes   and   issues   belonging   to   the   SBR   can   be   explained   by   analysing  the  situation  of  the  entire  BSR.  That’s  why  we  will  often  refer  to  the  BSR  as  a   historical,  cultural  entity  and  as  a  European  region  counting  many  cooperation  tools  in   which   the   South   Baltic   programme   is   included.   We   will   explain   in   a   first   section   why   the   cooperation   became   necessary   in   the   region   despite   the   dividing   historical   past   and   disparities  in  transport  infrastructures,  while  the  second  section  will  treat  the  question   of   EU   strategies   and   territorial   cooperation,   as   tools   for   transport   development   and   territorial  cohesion  on  different  scales.  

A. A region  comprising  common  issues  despite  complex   geopolitical  stakes  shaped  by  History     In   this   first   section,   we   will   see   how   the   historical   past   triggered   the   current   differences   of   development   between   the   countries   of   the   SBR,   and   the   disparities   of   territorial   planning   and   sustainable   transports.   However,   these   statements   will   prove   that  cooperation  between  those  countries  can  be  an  opportunity  instead  of  a  challenge,   especially  having  a  look  to  the  common  issues  standing  in  the  region.   1) A  region  shaped  by  its  historical  past:  can  we  talk  about  a   Baltic  region?   To   understand   the   differences   of   policies,   traditions   and   planning   cultures   across   the  South  Baltic  region,  it  might  be  relevant  to  have  an  insight  of  the  historical  past  of   the   bigger   region   of   the   Baltic   Sea   in   general.   Also,   we   could   question   the   regionalism   of   the   Baltic   Sea:   is   it   shaped   by   History   and   common   cultures,   or   is   it   more   about   the   results   of   the   European   policies?   Then   we   will   compare   the   main   socio-­‐economic   indicators   of   the   region   that   may   entail   some   difficulties   of   cohesion   between   the   countries  involved  in  the  South  Baltic  Programme.   In   the   early   Middle-­‐Ages,   the   Baltic   basin   was   inhabited   by   different   tribes   and   people   with   different   levels   of   organisations,   it   was   also   the   “Viking   Age”   in   Norway,   Sweden   and   Denmark.   The   12th   and   13th   centuries   achieved   the   Christianisation   of  the   entire   region,   especially   when   the   Teutonic   order   (monk   knights)   settled   in   all   the   southern   Baltic   shore.   But   then,   peoples   moved,   assimilated   each   other   or   fought   each   other,   until   dominant   countries   were   born:   Germany   and   Denmark.   According   to   Lars   Rydén,  the  first  state  formations,  around  1000  were  rather  weak  and  unstable,  but  the   strongest   ones   in   the   southern   part   of   the   Baltic   Sea   might   have   participated   to   the   “Europeanization”5  of   the   region   between   1100   and   1400.   He   adds   also   that   the   first                                                                                                                           5

Op.  Cit.  RYDÉN  Lars    


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

modernised states   appeared   around   1600   with   the   necessary   military,   economic   and   judicial   forces.   Then   the   region   knew   many   conflicts   between   powers   fighting   for   the   domination  of  the  region,  because  the  sea  was  seen  as  strategic  element  for  commerce   and   communication.   However,   merchant   and   cities   noticed   their   common   interest   in   building   a   sort   of   trade   organisation:   the   Hanseatic   League.   That’s   why   in   the   12th   century,   a   network   of   cities   in   the   Baltic   and   North   seas   have   been   created.   Generally,   the   goods   from   the   North-­‐East   Baltic   such   as   furs,   grains,   timber,   were   distributed   in   more   densely   populated   areas   in   continental   Europe.   At   the   beginning   it   was   an   initiative   dominated   by   North   German   cities,   but   then   it   took   more   importance   and   extended  until  London  during  the  14th  and  15th  centuries,  at  the  golden  age  of  the  Hansa.   Consequently,   as   Harald   Runbolm   says   in   the   book   The   Baltic   Region,   German   cities   gained   a   considerable   power   due   to   their   position   between   North   Sea   and   Baltic   Sea,   that’s   why   “the   German   influence   of   the   Hanseatic   League   can   still   be   seen   in   many   languages   in   the   region,   in   the   design   of   the   new   cities   they   planned,   in   architecture”6.   However,   the   rivalries   never   disappeared:   the   17th   century   corresponds   indeed   to   the   “Stockholm  period”7;  the  18th  was  the  moment  of  the  huge  growing  power  of  Prussia  in   the   Region,   especially   when   they   took   the   biggest   share   in   the   divisions   of   the   Lithuanian-­‐Polish   Empire,   which   was   swept   and   shared   in   1795   between   Prussia,   Austria  and  Russia.  The  World  War  I  in  the  region  marks  the  end  of  the  Tsarist  Russia   and   the   Second   German   Reich,   while   Poland   reappeared   on   the   map,   like   Finland,   Lithuania,   Estonia   and   Latvia,   however,   the   established   borders   created   new   tensions   between  Lithuania  and  Poland,  because  of  ethnic  minority  issues.  Further,  after  the  Nazi   period   and   the   World   War   II,   the   outcomes   in   the   Baltic   Sea   region   are   symbolized   by   the  dominance  of  the  Soviet  Union  on  Poland  and  the  eastern  part  of  divided  Germany,   the   forced   integration   of   Baltic   countries   in   USSR   and   the   Polish   borders   have   been   moved   to   the   west.   So   quite   soon,   the   Baltic   Sea   became   the   prolongation   of   the   Iron   Curtain  from  the  Danish-­‐German  border  to  the  Finnish-­‐Russian  one.  Hence  if  “until  the   nineteenth  century,  the  sea  was  the  main  uniting  link  for  the  people  inhabiting  the  whole   area   concerning   contact   between   localities,   cities,   towns   and   ports” 8 ,   the   Baltic   Sea   became   a   metaphoric   separation   between   Northern   and   Eastern   countries   for   half   a   century.   The   gap   became   even   more   symbolic   when   Denmark   joined   the   EEC   in   1973,   bringing   closer   the   Western   Europe   to   the   Baltic   Sea   area,   which   was   dominated   by   USSR.    After  the  polish  Resistance  from  Solidarnosc  in  the  1970’-­‐  80’s  and  the  breakdown   of   Soviet   Union   in   1989,   the   three   Baltic   Republics   recovered   their   independence   in   1991,  and  for  the  first  time,  The  Council  of  the  Baltic  Sea  States  (CBSS)  formed  in  1992,   gathered  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Norway,  Poland,  Russia   and  Sweden.  Soon,  Finland  and  Sweden  became  EU  member  in  1994.  Further,  the  former   soviet   countries   started   to   integrate   the   EU   and   other   international   organisations:                                                                                                                           6

RUNBLOM  Harald,  2002,  “The  Hansa”  in  Chapter  “Networks,  states  and  empires  in  the  Baltic  Region”  in   MACIEJEWSKI  Witold  (eds),  The  Baltic  Sea  Region  –  Cultures,  Politics,  Societies,  The  Baltic  University  Press,   Uppsala,  676p.,  p.61   7  Idem,  p.63   8  Idem,  p.55  


Poland entered   in   NATO   in   1999,   marking   the   separation   with   the   dominant   Russia,   and   Lithuania,  Latvia,  Estonia  and  Poland  became  as  well  EU  members  in  2004.     Therefore  we  clearly  see  in  this  paragraph  that  the  different  nations  around  the   Baltic  Sea  evolved  in  very  different  ways  since  their  creations,  despite  the  Hansa  period   that   we   can   consider   as   a   digression   in   History.   So   can   we   speak   about   a   common   culture?   A   Baltic   identity?   A   collective   memory?   From   the   historical   point   of   view,   we   can  argue  that  the  successive  periods  of  wars  and  trade  might  have  contributed  to  the   setup   of   common   knowledge   or   practices,   like   the   architecture   from   Germany   for   example  and  the  mix  of  populations,  especially  when  borders  were  removed  after  wars.   This  should  mean  that  this  common  history  should  entail  a  kind  of  common  identity.  But   this  macro-­‐regional  point  of  view  is  quite  far  from  the  ground  reality  and  the  sociologic   point   of   view.   Indeed,   most   of   the   people   have   been   educated   in   their   country,   with   national   programmes   of   History,   and   by   consequence   they   might   have   a   more   nation-­‐ centred  point  of  view.  And  above  all,  the  region  counts  9  official  languages,  3  Christian   religions,   8   EU   Member   States,   5   countries   in   the   EMU   etc...   They   may   feel   Polish   Swedish   or   Germans   before   to   feel   as   a   Baltic   inhabitant.   Moreover,   the   Baltic   identity   seems   even   more   hypothetic   for   people   belonging   to   a   Baltic   country   but   living   in   the   hinterlands,  far  from  the  sea.  So  we  may  say  that  the  establishment  of  a  Baltic  region  as  a   political  and  regional  entity  is  rather  modern  and  based  on  a  macro-­‐regional  subjective   point  of  view.  It  considers  a  region  following  the  administrative  borders  of  the  countries   and  trying  to  erase  the  scar  from  the  past  through  a  political  institution  like  the  CBSS,  or   more  recently,  the  Baltic  EuroRegion  as  we  will  see  later.  As  Nicolas  Escach  reminds  us   in  his  PhD,  the  word  “Hansa”  is  recycled  nowadays  in  the  names  of  firms,  companies  or   municipalities,   a   way   to   recall   the   old   memories   of   the   golden   age   of   the   Baltic   Sea:   “HanzeConnect”   in   Groningen,   “Hanse-­‐Kolleg”   in   Lippstadt,   “Hansa   Banka”   in   Riga,   “The   Hanseatic  City  of  Rostock”9...  This  may  refer  to  a  wealthy  past,  a  reliable  and  traditional   economy,   a   medieval   imaginary.   However,   this   is   rather   recent,   indeed   during   a   long   time   and   even   nowadays,   the   Hanseatic   League   was   considered   as   the   symbol   of   the   German   cities   on   the   Baltic   region.   So   this   movement   recalling   the   past   and   promoting   a   common  Baltic  culture  may  have  been  fostered  especially  by  political  actor  networks10,   that  wanted  to  create  a  new  political  level  dominated  by  so-­‐called  Baltic  municipalities,   less  controlled  by  the  central  state  and  turned  toward  the  Baltic  area.  In  the  SBR  region   as  well,  even  if  most  of  the  countries  are  now  in  the  EU  and  recall  a  common  “Hanseatic”   past  as  a  commercial  or  political  brand,  the  marks  of  the  historical  past  remains  in  the   region,  especially  through  the  numerous  socio-­‐economic  indicators.   Indeed,  speaking  about  economic  activity  in  the  South  Baltic  Region  particularly,   regions   situated   in   Sweden   and   Denmark   are   the   richest   among   the   regions   from   the   programme   area.   To   try   the   comparison,   we   will   use   European   data   that   would   allow   us   to   avoid   disparities   between   national   statistical   methods,   and   also   to   have   a   European                                                                                                                           9

ESCACH  Nicolas,  2014,  Réseaux  de  Villes  et  recompositions  interterritoriales  dans  l’espace  Baltique,  Thèse  de   doctorat  de  géographie,  aménagement  et  urbanisme,  ENS  Lyon,  463  p.,  p.56  –  TRANSLATED  BY  E.B.   10  Idem,  p.70  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

scale. We  will  compare  the  GDP  per  capita  in  Purchasing  Power  Standards  (PPS)  that  is   based   on   the   EU   average   set   to   equal   100.   Basic   figures   are   expressed   in   PPS,   like   a   common   currency   that   eliminates   the   differences   in   price   levels   between   countries   allowing   meaningful   comparisons   of   GDP   between   countries.   So   according   to   ESPON   statistics  from  2010,  the  Swedish  regions  of  Kalmar  län,  Blekinge  län,  and  Skane  län  have   in   average   a   PPS   from   100   to   110   %   of   EU   average,   so   slightly   higher   than   the   EU   average.  The  Danish  island  of  Bornholm  is  slightly  under  the  PPS  EU  average  (90-­‐100%   of   the   EU   average).   In   Germany,   the   situation   is   globally   worse,   counting   most   of   the   regions   in   programme   area   with   rather   low   PPS   per   inhabitant   (50   to   75   %   of   the   EU   average),  except  for  Bad  Doberan  (PPS  from  75  to  90  %  of  EU  average)  and  especially  for   the  Rostock  municipality  that  maintain  the  highest  PPS  per  inhabitant  of  the  programme   area:   from   110   to   125   %   of   the   EU   average.   However,   Polish   and   Lithuanian   regions   are   the   poorest.   The   coastal   regions   of   Lithuania   and   the   Polish   regions   of   Szczecin   and   Koszalinski   count   a   PPS   from   75   to  50  %  of  the  EU  average,  while   all   the   other   regions   have   a   PPS   under  the  half  of  the  EU  average.   The   exception   remains   in   the   Polish   Tricity   (Gdansk,   Sopot,   Gdynia)   where   the   economic   activity  raises  the  PPS  from  75  to   90   %   of   the   EU   average.   So   we   clearly   see   on   the   following   map   that   the   regions   which   were   under   the   soviet   domination   before   1990   still   suffer   from   lower   living   standards.   Nevertheless,  we  have  to  mention  that  in  2007  as  in  2014  and  as  today,  the  SBR  has  a   general  positive  economic  growth  (total  GDP  increased  by  about  32,6%  between  2003   and  2010),  while  the  averge  rate  for  the  EU  was  about  4.7%.    

Figure  2:  GDP  per  capita  (PPS)  in   relation  to  the  EU  average  (EU=100)  in   2010  in  the  South  Baltic  Region,   screenshot  (source:  ESPON  database,   Eurostat)  

The   ESPON   scientists   have   the   same   conclusion   but   they   also   noticed   the   increase   of   average   living  


standards in   Eastern   countries   since   2000:   “The   East-­‐West   divide   is   still   visible,   though   less   pronounced   than   10   years   ago”11.   Indeed   in   the   programme   area,   2   Lithuanian   regions,  3  polish  and  2  German  have  seen  their  GDP  growing  (they  jumped  from  below   to  above  50%  of  PPS  EU  average)12.  But  as  a  consequence  or  a  cause  of  disparities,  the   activities   of   the   countries   vary   across   the   SBR:   “Regions  above  average  GDP  per  capita   are   often   specialised   in   scientific,   technological,   ICT   and   financial   activities”13,   that   are   more  profitable  than  industrial  sectors,  still  important  in  the  Eastern  countries.   However,  another  indicator  informs  us  about  the  attractivity  of  the  regions,  and  it   is  even  important  for  understanding  later  some  of  the  disagreements  between  the  SBR   countries.  Indeed  the  demographic  indicators  show  that  the  human  density  is  higher  in   Poland  and  Germany,  while  Sweden  has  one  of  the  lowest  in  Europe.  At  the  same  time,   Polish   and   German   regions   belonging   to   the   programme   area   have   a   negative   migratory   balance  (from  -­‐1  to  0%  of  the  population),  while  Sweden  and  Denmark  have  an  overall   positive  migratory  balance14.  It  corresponds  in  fact  to  the  economic  situation,  as  we  saw   Northern  countries  have  profitable  ICT  and  scientific  orientated  sectors,  while  the  large   qualified   workforce   from   Poland   and   Lithuania   earn   less   attractive   salaries   in   their   country.   That’s   why   the   eastern   countries   are   suffering   from   brain-­‐drain   emigration,   especially  to  Sweden  and  United-­‐Kingdom.     That’s   why   it   looks   quite   hard   to   imagine   those   countries   cooperating,   because   they  seem  to  have  completely  different  issues  and  economic  levels,  and  the  theoretical   common   Baltic   identity   might   be   too   blurred   and   insignificant   to   establish   strong   and   deep  cultural  links.   2) Different  visions  of  planning  and  sustainable  transports   across  the  South  Baltic  Region   The  South  Baltic  region  is  composed  of  areas  with  very  different  socio-­‐economic   patterns.   And   we   may   assume   that   the   socio-­‐economic   geography   in   the   SBR   could   be   similar   when   talking   about   national   transport   planning   because   this   issue   is   closely   linked  to  the  economic  power  of  the  state.  Moreover,  we  will  try  to  see  how  each  country   is  involved  in  the  development  of  sustainability  for  transport,  an  issue  belonging  both  to   political  willingness  and  to  economic  power.   So   we   will   try   to   compare   shortly   the   different   transport   networks   of   the   countries  around  the  SBR,  and  try  to  find  their  common  issues  and  the  disparities.  The   overall  point  of  view  from  The  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  is  clear  and  draws  up   a   non-­‐surprising   report.   Indeed,   the   report   compares   the   Baltic   countries   regarding   road,   rail,   air   and   maritime   transport,   and   most   of   the   time   the   former   east-­‐west   barrier   is   still   visible.   We   can   argue   that   Germany   and   Denmark   have   the   best   transport   networks  on  all  the  features.  The  most  visible  difference  is  about  motorways  networks:                                                                                                                           11

Idem    ESPON  2010,  see  map  in  annexe  II   13  Op.  cit   14  EUROSTAT,  2006,  see  map  in  annexes  II   12


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

indeed Denmark   and   Sweden,   “as   the   most   densely   populated   areas”15  have   a   dense   network  that  we  can  explain  by  the  population  density,  but  also  because  of  the  History.   In  fact  Germany  has  been  the  first  country  to  develop  such  a  motorway  network  before   the  WWII,  and  the  tradition  remained.  Sweden  has  good  roads  infrastructures  but  they   are   rather   scattered   because   of   a   low   population   density,   so   the   motorways   are   only   connecting  metropolitan  areas  but  are  not  spread  all  over  the  country.  Then,  Germany   counts   a   good   rail   network   with   electrified   and   double-­‐tracked   railway   lines,   and   especially  counting  many  high-­‐speed  ways,  however,  some  disruptions  may  appear,  “as   some  parts  are  only  equipped  with  non-­‐electrified  lines  and  some  with  single-­‐track  lines”16.   Denmark   enjoys   rather   a   good   interconnectivity,   with   modern   infrastructures,   “not   disrupted   at   the   borders”,   the   country   has   indeed   very   good   connections   with   Sweden   with  motorways  and  railways,  especially  since  the  construction  of  the  Oresund  Bridge.   This   connection   crossing   sea   through   the   Oresund   strait   links   Copenhagen   (DK)   with   Malmo  (SE)  by  rail  and  motorway  on  a  8  km  bridge  completed  by  a  4  km  tunnel  arriving   to   the   Danish   coast.   Achieved   in   2000,   this   bridge   is   the   showcase   of   the   overall   good   connectivity   and   good   quality   of   infrastructures   in   the   region.   In   general,   the   connections   on   the   German-­‐Danish   and   Danish-­‐Swedish   borders   are   rather   good.   This   part  of  the  extended  SBR  (if  we  include  the  capitals  near  to  the  region)  counts  also  some   of  the  most  important  airports  in  Europe:  ”Copenhagen  airport  is,  so  far,  the  only  airport   located   in   the   Baltic   Sea   Region   that   belongs   in   the   top-­‐20   European   Airports”17,   while   Hamburg  and  Berlin  –Tegel  are  in  the  second  category  of  airports.  The  western  part  of   the  SBR  has  also  a  very  developed  cross-­‐border  ferry  lines  network,  as  the  countries  are   only   separated   by   a   narrow   sea   channel.   Ferry   lines   are   not   only   used   as   a   means   of   transport   for   cruises   or   cargo   shipping,   but   they   became   actually   a   “means   of   transportation   for   commuting   journeys”,   so   these   short   distance   and   high-­‐frequency   lines   are   making   maritime   transportation   essential   in   the   share   of   commuting   transports.   Lines   can   be   national   like   the   Denmark’s   Esebjerg-­‐Nordby   route,   but   also   cross-­‐border  like  Helingborg  (SE)-­‐Helsingor  (DE)  or  between  Germany  and  Denmark.   However,   the   Eastern   part   of   the   BSR   region   is   still   lagging   behind   in   the   development   of   transport   networks.   The   biggest   tangible   problem   remains   in   the   road   networks:   while   Lithuania   increased   its   network   by   40%   between   1993   and   201118,   Poland   didn’t   show   the   same   growth   because   the   main   priority   was   to   upgrade   and   renovate  the  existing  roads.  So  the  secondary  network  improved  a  lot,  or  even  increased.   But   the   primary   network   (motorways),   despite   an   increase   of   the   motorway   constructions,   remains   very   low.   In   Poland   and   Lithuania,   the   high-­‐capacity   rods   are   concentrated  in  the  most  important  urban  areas,  and  Poland,  as  a  rather  vast  European   country   has   only   three   main   motorways   axes   through   the   land:   Gdansk-­‐ Katowice/Krakow,   Warsaw-­‐Poznan-­‐Berlin,   and   Rzeszow-­‐Katowice/Krakow.   Then,   we                                                                                                                           15

EUROPEAN  UNION,  May  2010,  The  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region,  Background  and   analysis,  Luxembourg,  Editor,  Raphaël  Goulet,  European  Commission  DG  Regio,  156  p.  p.63   16  Idem,  p.70   17  Idem,  p.  71   18  Idem,  p.63  


may say  that  more  than  scattered  networks,  “the  carrying  capacity  and  the  quality  of  the   motorway   infrastructure   in   the   eastern   BSR   are   low   by   European   standards”19.   From   another   point   of   view   but   a   similar   assessment,   the   OECD   estimates   that   there   is   “a  need   in   for   about   2000   kilometres   in   additional   motorways,   which   would   require   an   investment   of   about   8%   of   GDP”20.   Then,   about   railways,   Poland   has   a   rather   dense   network   of   electrified   and   double-­‐tracked   railway   lines,   however   “only   30%   of   the   Polish   rail   network  is  considered  of  good  quality,  after  years  of  under-­‐investment  and  lack  of  repair   and  maintenance”21,  according  to  the  OECD.  Indeed,  as  we  can  read  in  the  EU  Strategy,   the  Russian  gauge  (1520mm  while  the  European  gauge  is  1435  mm)  is  still  used  in  some   parts   of   Poland   and   Lithuania 22  that   causes   some   problems   of   interoperability.   Furthermore,  about  airports,  only  Poland,  due  to  the  small  size  of  the  Lithuanian  state,   has   an   important   European   airport:   “In   the   eastern   part   of   the   region,   only   Warsaw   airport   has   passenger   traffic   volumes   that   approach   those   in   BSR   (West)”.  But  we  have  to   admit  that  a  recent  expansion  is  noticeable  in  smaller  airports  due  to  the  development  of   the   low-­‐cost   carriers,   and   this   growth   has   been   more   profitable   to   eastern   airports   such   as  Gdansk  airport  for  example  which  is  shifting  more  and  more  passengers  and  cargos   every  year.  Finally,  about  maritime  transport,  the  best  port  equipments  are  still  lacking   in  the  eastern  part  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  and  as  it  is  précised  in  the  Operational  programme   of  the  SB  Interreg  IV,  “connecting  links  between  ports  and  the  road  and  rail  infrastructure   are   worst   in   the   Polish   ports” 23 .   But   what   are   the   main   consequences   of   this   low   transport   network   in   Poland   and   Lithuania   in   general?   The   main   challenge   lies   in   the   fact   that   Poland   and   Lithuania,   as   the   general   tendency   in   eastern   countries   after   the   Wall   Fall,”the   number   of   vehicles   per   1000   inhabitants   has   more   than   doubled   since   1990” 24 .   Consequently,   this   growth   may   be   hard   to   handle   regarding   the   slow   improvements   of   roads   infrastructures,   causing   hence   road   congestion   and   deterioration.   This   challenge   is   also   a   barrier   for   the   economic   development   of   these   countries  that  have  seen  a  growth  traffic  comprised  between  10  and  50%  annually  for   the  last  couple  of  years  on  the  main  national  routes.   That’s  why  we  might  assume  that  all  these  countries  in  the  SBR  may  not  have  the   same   priorities.   While   Eastern   countries   try   to   adapt   their   transport   network   to   the   increasing   demand,   Sweden,   Germany   and   Denmark   are   already   focused   on   greening   transports  and  energies.  Indeed  according  to  the  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA),   “transport   is   still   responsible   for   25%   of   EU   greenhouse   gas   emissions,   and   contributes   significantly   to   air   pollution,   noise   and   habitat   fragmentation”25,   and   transport   sectors   also  consumes  around  the  third  of  all  final  energy  consumption.  So  since  the  EU  fostered   all  the  Member  States  in  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  the  stake  has  been  handled                                                                                                                           19

Idem    OECD,  2011,  OECD  Urban  Policy  Reviews:  Poland  2011,  OECD  Publishing,  200p.,  p.  76   21  Op.  Cit,,  EU  Strategy  for  BSR,  p.  77   22  Op.  Cit,  OECD,  p.70   23  INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  Operational  Programme  for  2007-­‐2013,76p,  p13   24  Op.  Cit.  EU  Strategy  for  the  BSR,  p.  69   25  EEA,  Official  Website  -­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐29)   20


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

seriously, but   at   very   different   levels   through   Europe,   regarding   their   means   and   the   state  of  their  economic  development.  Hence  in  the  SBR,  we  can  see  that  the  development   of   green   energies   and   transports   is   similar   to   the   development   of   transport   networks   in   general:  consequently,  eastern  countries  have  less  developed  systems  and  technologies   for  sustainability.  However,  these  countries  still  have  a  room  for  manoeuvre  comparing   to   the   “western   countries”,   indeed   if   we   compare   the   current   CO2   emissions   from   transport  per  capita,  Poland  and  Lithuania  have  nearly  twice  lower  transport  emissions   than   Germany,   Denmark   and   Sweden.   In   2012,   the   CO2   emissions   from   transport   was   at   1.3  T  per  capita  in  Poland,  1.9  in  Lithuania,  but  2.3  T  in  Germany,  2.9  in  Denmark  and   even   2.8   in   Sweden.   But   we   can   argue   that   this   disparity   is   going   to   disappear   regarding   the  evolution  of  transport  emissions  per  country:  Poland  CO2  emissions  from  transports   rose   up   to   more   than   120%   between   1990   and   2012,   while   Germany,   Denmark   and   Sweden  remained  below  an  increase  of  25%  approximately26.     Consequently,  regarding  their  economic  development  and  their  rate  of  pollution,   Sweden,  Denmark  and  Germany  multiplied  one  decade  ago  the  environmental-­‐friendly   solutions.  For  transports,  we  can  notice  through  to  features  that  the  countries  are  on  the   way   to   reduce   transport   CO2   emissions.   For   example,   the   share   of   cycling   in   daily   urban   transport  modes  in  these  countries  is  the  highest  in  the  BSR.  While  the  EU  average  is  at   23%,  Sweden  counts  17%  of  cyclists  for  daily  commuting,  Germany  16%  and  Denmark   23%,   while   the   share   is   lower   in   Poland   (11%)   and   Lithuania   (7%)27.   Other   example,   while   Lithuania   and   Poland   doubled   their   car   traffic,   the   increase   in   Sweden   and   Germany   has   been   limited   to   9.3%   in   the   following   decade   after   the   Wall   Fall28.   More   generally,   Germany   but   especially   Sweden   and   Denmark   are   belonging   to   the   most   active   countries   in   term   of   environment   protection   in   Europe,   experimenting   new   solutions  and  trying  to  shift  their  economies  toward  green.  For  example,  according  to  an   article  for  the  newspaper  Independent,  “Sweden  wants  to  become  the  first  fossil  fuel-­‐free   country   in   the   world”29,   regarding   their   recent   budget   that   is   deliberately   investing   massively  in  renewable  and  green  energy.  Nowadays,  Sweden  generates  more  than  two-­‐ thirds   of   its   electricity   through   renewable   sources,   notices   the   journalist.   Moreover,   Denmark  counts  now  an  important  and  efficient  wind  farms  network,  that  has  been  able   to   generate   140%   of   the   Danish   demand   on   the   10th   of   July,   2015.   This   may   prove,  


CLAROS  Eulalia,  PAPE  Marketa,  2015,  “At  a  Glance  –  Transport  CO2  emissions  in  focus”,  European   Parliamentary  Research  Service,  2  p.  -­‐   (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐29)   27  THE  GALLUP  ORGANISATION  (Hungary),  2007,  “Attitudes  on  issues  related  to  EU  Transport  Policy,  Analytical   report”,  Flash  Barometer,  survey  requested  by  the  DG  Energy  &  Transports,  European  Commission.  82  p.,  p.11  -­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐29)   28  Op.  Cit,  EU  Strategy  for  the  BSR,  p.  69   29  BOLTON  Doug,  “  Sweden  wants  to  become  the  first  fossil  fuel-­‐free  country  in  the  world  –  How  it  will  work?”   Independant,  2015-­‐10-­‐07  -­‐­‐first-­‐fossil-­‐fuel-­‐free-­‐country-­‐ in-­‐the-­‐world-­‐a6684641.html  (accessed  2016-­‐02-­‐23)  


according to   the   European   Wind   Energy   Association   that   “a   world   powered   100%   by   renewable  energy  is  no  fantasy”30.   Finally,  we  can  wonder  how  those  countries  of  the  BSR  can  cooperate  regarding   all   those   differences.   Indeed,   in   addition   to   the   socio-­‐economic   gaps,   we   saw   that   transports   and   sustainable   development   are   ranked   at   totally   different   levels   through   the   national   policies.   While   some   are   still   developing   their   transport   network   and   efficiency,  others  are  already  focused  on  sustainability.   3) Overview  of  the  common  issues  linked  with  regional   accessibility   As   we   noticed   huge   disparities   between   the   countries   belonging   to   the   same   South  Baltic  programme,  we  will  see  here  that  these  countries  have  still  many  common   issues  that  would  justify  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  transport  and  environment  areas.   We   have   to   know   that   some   of   the   issues   have   to   be   handled   in   common,   and   others   are   belonging   to   the   locality,   but   cooperation   between   localities   can   help   them   to   find   efficient  local  answers.   At   first,   even   if   western   countries   seem   to   have   better   transport   networks,   a   global   accessibility   issue   remains   in   the   SBR,   as   it   exists   for   the   whole   Baltic   Sea   Region.   Indeed,   as   we   remark   in   the   EU   Strategy   for   the   BSR,   “this  region  which  is  located  outside   the  economic  centre  of  Europe,  is  highly  dependent  on  foreign  trade  in  goods  and  needs  a   well-­‐functioning  transport  infrastructure  for  its  economic  growth”.  In  fact,  Only  Germany   and   Poland   are   belonging   to   the   “continental   Europe”   and   have   more   than   seven   neighbouring   countries   each,   while   Denmark,   Lithuania   and   Sweden   have   good   connection   to   the   sea   but   not   the   EU   economic   centre.   Moreover,   we   have   to   say   that   most   of   the   regions   belonging   to   the   programme   area   are   some   of   the   less   connected   region   in   their   country.   For   example,   the   Pomeranian   region   suffers   from   a   lack   of   connectivity   with   the   rest   of   the   country.   The   OECD’s   remarks   support   our   argumentation:   “The   lowest   density   level   (of   motorways)   can   be   found   in   the   areas   that   could   better   connect   the   ULMAs   of   Gdansk   and   Szczecin   (...)   The   lowest   levels   of   motorway   density  can  be  found  in  the  north,  highlighting  the  lack  of  a  north-­‐south  connection”31.  At   the   same   time,   similar   conclusions   can   be   drawn   for   the   Mecklenburg-­‐Vorpommern   region   (DE),   the   Bornholm   Island   (DK),   the   Klaipeda   country   (LT)   or   the   Blekinge   and   Kalmar   regions   (SE)   that   are   generally   side-­‐lined   in   their   respective   countries,   like   cross-­‐border   regions   in   general.   We   can   evoke   also   a   text   from   Nicolas   Escarch   about   Germany  reunification  stakes:  “After  the  Wall  fall,  the  economic  difficulties  has  remained   until   nowadays,   as   we   can   see   through   the   unemployment   rate   of   Mecklenburg   in   2011   which   was   still   pointing   between   11   and   14%.   Hence   the   Baltic   networks   appear   progressively  as  a  possible  solution  for  local  stakeholders  willing  to  tackle  the  increasing                                                                                                                           30

NELSEN  Arthur,  “Wind  power  generates  140%  of  Denmark’s  electricity  demand”,  The  Guardian,  2015-­‐06-­‐10  -­‐­‐wind-­‐windfarm-­‐power-­‐exceed-­‐electricity-­‐ demand  (accessed  2016-­‐02-­‐23)   31  Op.  Cit,  OECD,  p.  76  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

marginalization” 32 . So   we   can   say   that   these   regions   have   a   double-­‐challenge   of   connectivity:   they   have   to   improve   each   their   internal   connectivity,   but   this   is   closely   linked   to   the   external   connectivity   issue   because   all   the   related   regions   share   actually   the   same   sea   that   can   be   seen   as   an   obstacle.   In   order   to   tackle   both   challenges,   the   solution   is   to   improve   links   between   the   regions,   especially   maritime   connections;   it   could  also  raise  the  need  for  the  states  to  improve  the  connectivity  of  the  regions  with   the  rest  of  their  respective  countries.  The  main  needs  remain  in  the  eastern  part  of  the   SBR   where   both   road   and   rail   transport   are   still   lacking   between   the   main   metropolitan   areas,   especially   between   Poland,   Kaliningrad   (RU)   and   Lithuania.   This   connectivity   improvement   could   be   also   linked   to   the   overall   objective   of   the   EU   to   foster   the   network  of  huge  transport  axes.  This  is  called  the  TEN  transport  corridors,  and  it  aims  to   link  major  European  and  global  markets  prioritised  by  the  EU.  So  to  a  great  extend,  the   interest   of   the   SBR   is   to   prolong   the   TEN-­‐T   corridors   in   order   to   be   included   in   the   central   economy   of   Europe.   Indeed,   the   North-­‐South   corridor   is   already   extended   through   the   Oresund   Bridge   that   “has   been   of   significant   importance   for   the   dynamic   growth  in  trade  and  industry  in  this  part  of  the  SB  area”33,   it   proves   as   well   that   a   local   accessibility  issue  (Denmark-­‐Sweden)  can  have  an  impact  on  the  general  benefit  of  the   entire   SBR   accessibility.   That’s   why   local   transport   networks   especially   between   Mecklenburg-­‐Vorpommern   (DE),   Zachodniopomorskie   (PL),   Pomorskie,(PL),   Kaliningrad  and  Lithuania  could  be  also  improved  in  order  to  double  the  East-­‐West  TEN-­‐ T   corridor   originally   based   through   the   Brussels-­‐Berlin-­‐Warsaw   axis.   So   these   corridors   can   be   improved   by   roads   and   rail   ways,   but   also   by   maritime   links.   That’s   why   the   accessibility   issue   of   the   SBR   lies   also   in   “introducing   new   intermodal   maritime-­‐based   logistic   chains” 34 ,   to   shift   goods   and   passengers   easily   from   road   to   rail   and   sea.   Generally,  “the  short  sea  shipping  is  one  of  the  most  promising  economic  sectors  within  the   area,   and   is   strongly   supported   by   national   strategies”,   as   precises   an   INTERACT   document.35This  accessibility  issue  is  gathered  and  can  be  tackled  only  by  cross-­‐border   cooperation.   Secondly,   the   very   big   common   issue   for   the   BSR   is   the   protection   of   the   environment  and  the  maritime  biodiversity.    Indeed  the  wider  Baltic  Sea  Region  counts   the  most  polluted  sea  in  Europe,  due  to  a  “proliferation  of  heavy  industries  during  the   nineteenth   and   twentieth   centuries,   including   iron   and   steel   mills,   smelters,   chemical   plants,   refineries,   pulp   and   paper   mills,   and   cement   factories”36.   Unfortunately,   this   affected  rivers,  wetlands  and  coasts  which  were  already  fragile  because  of  the  closed-­‐sea   specificity  and  a  low  salinity  environment.  In  fact,  the  main  consequence  of  the  pollution                                                                                                                           32

ESCARCH  Nicolas,  2012,  “La  région  baltique  ou  la  tentation  du  «  saut  d’échelle  »  entre  Allemagne  divisée  et   «  Allemagne  réunie  »’’,  Mémoire(s),  identité(s),  marginalité(s)  dans  le  monde  occidental  contemporain,   n.8/2012  -­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐02-­‐25)  TRANSLATED  BY  E.B.   33  Op.Cit.  ,  Operational  programme  for  2007-­‐2013,  p,17   34  Idem   35 DI  PIAZZA  Barbara,  2015,  Cross-­‐Border  Cooperation  Maritime  Programmes  in  the  2007-­‐2013  programming   period,  INTERACT  study,  ERDF,  195p.,  p.  111   36  Idem,  p.109  


is the   eutrophication   that   entails   an   abnormal   growth   of   algae   and   a   biodiversity   dysfunction  (algae  consuming  too  much  oxygen,  altering  fauna  and  flora).  This  is  caused   by  a  high  concentration  of  nitrogen  and  phosphorus,  often  produced  by  agriculture  and   industry   leaks.   Obviously,   this   problem   has   to   be   handle   in   a   common   measure,   because   all   countries   are   responsible   and   all   are   paying   the   consequences   (affecting   environment,   but   also   maritime   landscapes   and   by   extension,   tourism   activity).   Stakeholders  have  also  to  find  solutions  to  decrease  the  greenhouse  emissions  produced   by  cargos  in  the  maritime  area,  as  well  as  improving  security  against  oil  spills  or  other   polluting  cargo  leaks.   Thirdly,   we   can   evoke   the   fact   that   some   issues   are   only   on   local   scales   and   particular   to   the   region,   but   we   can   find   similarities   across   the   programme   area.   For   example,  the  problem  of  the  rural  accessibility  is  belonging  to  the  local  scale  and  has  to   be   handled   by   local   authorities.   However,   as   the   SBR   has   a   rather   low-­‐density   (76   inhabitants/km2)  comparing  to  the  EU  average  (114/km2),  and  counts  only  8  cities  of   more   than   100  000   inhabitants,   the   SBR   has   many   enclosing   rural   with   problems   of   rural  accessibility.  Moreover,  management  of  the  coastal  planning  or  rivers  such  as  dikes   or   canals   is   a   local   issue,   but   all   the   regions   near   to   the   Baltic   Sea   have   to   handle   with   it.   We   can   take   many   other   examples   such   as   tourism,   timber   industry,   environmental   technologies,   businesses,   etc...   All   these   issues   can   be   solved   at   the   local   level,   but   the   solutions  can  be  even  more  efficient  by  cooperating  and  sharing  knowledge.     Finally,  we  may  say  that  each  region  comprises  its  own  strengths  and  weaknesses   and  the  differences  across  the  sea  may  appear  as  an  opportunity  in  the  sense  that  each   country  has  a  lot  to  learn  from  the  others.  Cross-­‐border  cooperation  could  then  help  to   spread   best   practice   example   and   to   share   knowledge   in   order   to   tackle   issues   in   the   SBR.   That’s   why   despite   all   the   socio-­‐economic   disparities,   all   the   differences   of   transport  planning  and  the  gaps  of  sustainability  policies  across  the  SBR,  cooperation  is   still   possible,   and   even   necessary.   Indeed,   The   Baltic   Region   may   have   been   created   more  by  the  political  needs  than  by  the  cultural  and  historical  heritage,  but  now  we  can   understand  the  reasons  of  the  political  cooperation  between  the  countries,  they  have  to   act   together   if   they   want   to   tackle   at   the   same   time   local,   national   and   macro-­‐regional   problems.   One   sentence   from   the   EUSBSR   summarises   perfectly   our   argumentation   because   the   whole   BSR   comprises   the   same   gaps:   “The   differences   between   the   most   successfully   innovative   regions   in   the   EU,   in   the   Nordic   countries   and   Germany,   and   the   regions   with   well-­‐educated   young   people   and   deficient   infrastructure   in   Poland   and   the   three  Baltic  States,  provide  opportunities  for  complementary  cooperation  and  development   of  great  benefit  to  all  sides”37.  Hence  disparities  become  strengths.  


Op.  Cit,  EU  Strategy  for  the  BSR,  p.9  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

B. The EU  supporting  the  accessibility  issue  on  different   scales:  from  Europe  to  the  South  Baltic  Region   This  part  is  dedicated  to  the  EU  strategy  for  transport.  As  we  know  already  that   cooperation  is  needed  in  the  SBR,  we  will  see  in  this  part  how  the  EU  supports  transport   development  on  all  scales:  at  first  what  transport  and  territorial  cohesion  policy  on  the   large  European  Scale,  and  secondly  what  policy  in  the  whole  Baltic  Sea  region.  Thirdly   we   will   try   to   understand   how   the   South   Baltic   programme   is   included   in   all   this   numerous  EU  funds  at  various  scales,  and  we  will  question  the  impact  of  such  small  scale   programme   comparing   to   the   massive   EU   sectoral   policies   and   larger   territorial   cooperation  programmes.   1) The  importance  of  the  transport  issue  in  economic   development  and  EU  integration   As   we   know,   the   participating   areas   are   regions   of   five   different   EU   Member   States   (MS).   And   it   has   been   evoked   previously   in   the   introduction   that   this   Interreg   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programme   is   belonging   to   the   overall   EU   policy   aiming   to   harmonise,  and  integrate  all  the  MS.  The  goal  is  to  foster  cooperation  in  order  to  create  a   more   coherent   territory   and   more   efficient   union   in   terms   of   politics,   legislation,   economy,   society,   and   culture.   That’s   why   the   EU,   under   the   responsibility   of   the   European   Commission,   created   the   European   Structural   and   Cohesion   Funds.   In   this   context,   several   funds   work   together   to   support   economic   development   in   Europe,   according   to   the   funding   periods   (the   current   one   period   2014-­‐2020   is   allocated   of   a   budget  of  €  454  billion).  Hence  the  EU  invests  with  the  objectives  of  the  “Europe  2020   strategy”  through  programmes  such  as:  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund,  the   European   Agricultural   Fund   for   Rural   Development,   the   European   Social   Fund   (for   employment,  education  and  combating  poverty)  for  example.  Two  other  sectoral  funds   have  a  significant  impact  on  the  European  integration:  the  Cohesion  Fund  (CF)  allocated   especially   to   the   less   developed   EU   MS   and   the   European   Regional   Development   Fund   (ERDF)   “aiming   to   strengthen   economic   and   social   cohesion   in   the   EU   by   correcting   imbalances  between  its  regions”38.  In  addition,  the  influence  of  the  EU  is  increased  also  by   the  considerable  development  of  the  EU  legislation  that  creates  some  common  rules  in   many   fields   (pollution,   industries,   maritime   planning,   environment,   commerce,   ICTs,   etc...).   This   collaboration   is   rather   “vertical”   as   it   gathers   EU,   national   and   regional   institutions   and   contributes   among   other   things   to   the   territorial   cohesion   of   the   Community  territory,  in  order  to  foster  growth  and  jobs  and  to  connect  territories.   More   precisely,   the   first   policy   area   named   in   the   Green   Paper   on   Territorial   Cohesion   (2008)   is   the   transport   policy:   “Transport   policy   has   obvious   implications   for   territorial  cohesion  through  its  effect  on  the  location  of  economic  activity  and  the  pattern   of   settlements.   It   plays   a   particularly   important   role   in   improving   connections   to   and                                                                                                                           38

EUROPEAN  COMMISSION,  Official  website,  “Regional  Policy  funding  “-­‐    (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐29)  


within less  developed  regions”39.   And   this   will   of   improving   transport   on   the   European   scale   is   comprised   in   a   more   general   trend   noticed   by   Dühr,   Stead   and   Zonneveld   in   2007:  “EU  sectoral  policies  in  the  fields  of  environment,  transport,  rural  development  and   regional  policy  have  considerable  spatial  impacts”40.     Why   investing   in   transport   is   the   key   tool   for   the   EU   policy?   The   European   construction  process  has  built  step  by  step  a  community  of  28  member  states  bound  by   common   laws   (EU   regulations,   directives),   common   economy,   common   institutions,   common  programmes  (agriculture,  research,  etc...),  common  events  (European  Capital  of   Culture,  Heritage  Day,  etc...).  So  obviously,  more  and  more  goods  and  people  are  crossing   the  borders  inside  the  EU  area.  Hence  transport  is  becoming  a  European  issue  and  has  to   be  handled  not  only  at  the  local,  regional  or  national  level,  but  has  to  be  integrated  in  a   European   network.   We   can   argue   that   European   integration   entails   a   demand   for   mobility,   created   by   working,   vacationing   or   manufacturing   activities.   But   in   the   manual   The  Geography  of  Transport  Systems,  we  can  see  that  this  might  create  a  direct  derived   demand  (commuting,  rail,  maritime  or  air  travel,  truck  and  container  ship),  but  also  an   indirect   derived   demand   (services,   warehousing,   energy   supply) 41  that   have   to   be   thought   and   integrated   in   a   general   planning   policy.   The   manual   highlights   also   that   “transport   is   an   indispensable   component   of   the   economy   and   plays   a   major   role   in   special   relations  between  locations,  between  regions  and  economic  activities,  between  people  and   the  rest  of  the  world’42.  At  the  same  time,  “transport  has  an  impact  on  nation  building  and   national   unity,   it   is   also   a   political   tool”,  transferred  to  the  European  scale,  this  sentence   could  help  us  to  argue  that  more  than  an  economical  goal,  transport  have  also  the  goal  to   bring   European   countries   closer,   and   even   to   create   a   European   unity.   That’s   why   cooperation  appears  then  as  a  real  need  for  these  cross-­‐border  regions  as  well  as  for  the   whole   European   nations   all   together.   In   this   sense,   we   can   even   talk   about   “border   effects”  and  “costs  of  non-­‐coordination”,  terms  from  Robert  et  al.  2001,  taken  up  by  Dühr,   Colomb   and   Nadin   in   2010.   They   explain   that   cooperation   became   necessary   since   it   brought  “benefits  to  the  cities  and  regions  involved  by  allowing  them  to  tackle  issues  that   require  coherent  management  across  national  borders”43,  in  other  words  it  help  them  to   tackle  issues  that  belong  to  the  border  aspect,  and  to  develop  cooperation  in  transports   to  develop  a  coherent  multinational  network.   Furthermore,   it   might   be   appropriate   to   expose   the   tools   of   the   EU   sectoral   policies   on   transport   and   spatial   planning.   At   first,   the   Cohesion   Fund   (CF)   helps   to   rebalance   the   disparities   of   transport   networks   and   qualities,   as   it   is   allocated   to   countries   with   a   Growth   national   Income   (GNI)   per   inhabitant   inferior   to   90%   of   the   EU                                                                                                                           39

COMMISSION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  2008,  Green  Paper  on  Territorial  Cohesion  Turning   territorial  diversity  into  strength,  Brussels,  12p.,  p.  9  -­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐29)   40  Op.  Cit.  DÜHR  Stefanie  “The  Europeanization  of  spatial  planning  through  territorial  cooperation”,  p.291   41  Op.  Cit.  RODRIGUE  Jean-­‐Paul,  The  Geography  of  Transport  Systems,  p.3.   42  Idem,  p.5   43  DÜHR  Stefanie,  COLOMB  Claire,  NADIN  Vincent,  2010,  European  Spatial  Planning  and  Territorial  Cooperation,   London  and  New-­‐York,  Routledge,  488  p.,  p.346  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

average. That’s   why   we   can   see   for   example   a   significant   number   of   large   boards   explaining   to   the   public   that   their   station,   or   their   bike   facility,   or   their   tram   line   have   been  financed  by  the  EU,  especially  in  Poland  and  Lithuania  for  the  SBR.  The  CF  will  also   support  infrastructure  projects  that  are  linked  to  wider  European  transport  projects  like   Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF).   That’s  why  we  can  evoke  secondly  the  large  EU  programmes  funding  transports.   The   Innovation   and   Networks   Executive   Agency   (INEA)   has   been   created   by   the   EU   Commission   to   support   promoters   and   stakeholders   by   providing   expertise   and   synergies  for  activities  in  the  fields  of  transport,  energy  and  telecommunication.  The  CEF   offers   directly   financial   support   to   projects   seeking   to   improve   those   fields.   Transport   projects   are   supported   by   the   CEF   Transport   section   that   is   actually   helping   the   implementation   of   the   TEN-­‐T   policy   (Trans-­‐European   Transport   Networks).   This   is   a   planned  network  of  corridors  comprising  air,  rail,  road,  waterborne  transports.  The  goal   is   to   “close   the   gaps   between   MS’s   transport   networks,   remove   bottlenecks   that   still   hamper   the   smooth   functioning   of   the   internal   market   and   overcome   technical   barriers   such  as  incompatible  standards  for  railway  traffic”44,   integrated   in   9   large   corridors,   as   we  can  see  on  the  following  map.  

Figure  3:  Map  of  the  TEN-­‐T  corridors  network  on  the  EU  territory  for  the  period  2014-­‐2020  (source:  European   Commission)  

In addition  to  this  territorial  planning  programme,  Motorways  of  the  Sea  are  considered   as  the  maritime  pillar  of  CEF  Transport.  This  is  a  programme  funding  directly  projects                                                                                                                           44

EUROPEAN  COMMISSION  official  website  -­‐­‐t-­‐ guidelines/index_en.htm  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐31)  


with the  same  objectives  as  TEN-­‐T  but  focusing  on  flows  of  freight  on  maritime  route,  in   order   to   improve   existing   maritime   links   or   to   establish   new   viable   routes   for   the   transport  of  goods  especially.  In  total,  CEF  transport  counts  a  budget  of  €24.05  billion,   including   €22.4   dedicated   to   the   grants   for   projects.   This   idea   of   planning   transport   networks   at   the   European   scale   exists   since   the   Treaty   of   Rome   in   1956,   but   evolved   step  by  step.  Today,  the  CEF  and  TEN-­‐T  are  powerful  tools  under  the  direction  of  the  DG   MOVE  (Mobility  and  Transport),  on  behalf  of  the  EU  Commission.  At  the  same  time,  the   INEA   finances   a   research   programme   called   Horizon   2020   that   have   also   a   section   dedicated  to  “smart  green  and  integrated  transports”.  For  all  fields,  Horizon  2020  is  the   biggest   European   Research   and   Innovation   programme,   with   a   consequent   budget   of   €80   billion   on   the   2014-­‐2020   funding   period.   The   funds   are   also   distributed   through   grants.   Thirdly,  apart  from  these  very  large  scale  funds,  the  ERDF  has  also  a  tool  to  foster   territorial   cohesion   through   regional   policy:   the   European  Territorial  Cooperation   (ETC),   gathering  80%  of  the  ERDF  funds  (the  ERDF  is  also  investing  for  general  programmes  in   favour  of  growth  and  jobs),  known  also  as  Interreg.  This  form  of  territorial  cooperation   exists  since  1990.  Since  this  period,  the  programmes  haven’t  ceased  increasing.  Indeed,   if   the   first   programming   period   (Interreg   I:   1990-­‐1993)   received   ECU   1.1   billion,   the   Interreg  IV  (2007-­‐2013)  had  been  allocated  of  €8.7  billion.  This  incredible  growth  is  of   course  due  to  the  EU  enlargement  and  the  need  to  include  new  territories,  but  also  due   to   the   raising   interest   of   territorial   cooperation.   The   new   Interreg   V   (2014-­‐2020),   allocated   of   €10.1   billion,   is   supporting   11   investment   priorities   inspired   by   the   ERDF   Regulation,  including  the  thematic  objective  “sustainable  transport”.  Interreg  is  divided   in   more   than   100   cooperation   programmes   between   regions   and   local,   social   and   economic  stakeholders,  and  each  programme  has  to  choose  4  priorities  among  the  list  of   the  thematic  objectives,  sometimes  transport  is  treated,  sometimes,  through  other  topics   (climate   change   or   innovation   for   instance),   and   sometimes,   this   topic   is   not   in   the   priorities  at  all.  The  biggest  programme  is  Interreg  V-­‐C,  called  Interreg  Europe,  this  one     is  mostly  providing  a  framework  for  knowledge  exchange  between  local  actors  from  all   Europe,   however,   transport   does   not   appear   in   its   priorities.   Then,   we   have   15   transnational   cooperation   programmes:   Interreg   V-­‐B,   that   is   including   big   regions   (NUTS   I   and   II   levels)   belonging   to   some   particular   regions   such   as   Alps,   Adriatic,   Central   Europe   or   even   Baltic   Sea.   Moreover,   it   exists   some   programmes   of   territorial   cooperation   with   neighbouring   countries   of   the   EU,   for   pre-­‐accession   or   international   cooperation.   Finally,   the   ERDF   developed   also   60   cross-­‐border   programmes,   called   Interreg   V-­‐A,   dedicated   to   the   small-­‐scale   regions   (NUTS   III   level)   situated   on   the   EU   internal   borders.   These   programmes,   after   publishing   their   framework   and   their   priorities,  they  generally  open  some  calls  for  tenders  and  choose  the  projects  that  fit  the   best  with  their  priorities  and  the  ERDF  regulation.   To   conclude,   three   large   EU   structural   funds   are   participating   to   the   territorial   cohesion   of   the   EU   territory,   and   directly   or   indirectly   to   the   development   of   transports.   The  CF  fosters  among  other  infrastructures,  the  rebalancing  of  transport  means.  At  the     27    

Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

same time,   very   large   scales   programmes   directly   support   transport   networks,   while   some   large,   medium   and   small-­‐scale   programmes   foster   territorial   cohesion   and   transports,  by  cross  border  cooperation  programmes.  According  to  the  Eurostat  Agency,   for  the  programming  period  2007-­‐2013,  transports  has  been  financed  up  to  €82  billion   by   the   total   cohesion   policy   funding   (almost   one   quarter   of   the   total   cohesion   policy   budget).   The   majority   came   from   the   ERDF   and   the   CF   and   supported   mainly   road   infrastructure  (more  than  50%),  rail  infrastructure  (more  than  25%),  urban  transports   (10%),  multimodal  and  intelligent  transports  (4%)  and  airports  (2%)45.   2) The  role  of  Pan-­‐Baltic  institutions  and  European  strategy  in   accessibility  policies  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region   The   European   Union   does   promote   the   development   of   transports   and   accessibility   on   all   its   territories,   including   in   the   Baltic   Sea   in   which   is   situated   the   countries   of   the   South   Baltic   programme.   In   the   EU   cooperation,   the   Baltic   Sea   is   considered   as   one   “Euroregion”   and   comprises   consequently   some   ETC   programmes.   However,   the   Baltic   Sea   did   not   wait   for   the   EU   before   to   create   its   own   cooperation   tools.   That’s   why   we   will   explain   here   the   institutionalised   tradition   of   the   BSR.   Further,   we  will  study  all  the  ETC  programmes  Interreg  V-­‐B  and  Interreg  V-­‐A  which  complete  the   cooperation  needs  of  this  maritime  region.   Since  the  USSR  collapse,  the  informal  and  subjective  area  around  the  Baltic  Sea,   designated   as   the   “Baltic   Region”,   evaluated   to   become   the   most   institutionalised   region   of   Europe,   and   probably   of   the   world.   Indeed   the   whole   geographic   area   counts   more   than   30   organisations,   programmes   and   institutions   dealing   with   several   countries   of   the   Baltic   region,   however,   each   of   them   have   its   own   definition   of   the   Baltic   area:   some   of   them   include   Norway,   or   Belarus,   while   others   include   only   the   very   maritime   coastal   regions.   The   first   institutional   cooperation   started   in   the   1950’s   between   the   Nordic   countries   with   the   creation   of   a   Nordic   council   and   parliamentary,   so   Denmark,   Finland,   Sweden   and   Norway   have   a   rather   strong   culture   of   cooperation.   Then   in   1974,   a   convention  on  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment  of  the  Baltic  Sea  area  is  signed   in   Helsinki   by   Denmark,   Finland,   West   and   East   Germany,   Poland,   USSR   and   Sweden.   So   for  the  first  time,  all  the  States  surrounding  the  Baltic,  whatever  their  “block  belonging”   agreed  to  cooperate  about  a  common  issue:  the  environment.  It  triggered  the  creation  of   the  HELCOM  organisation.  But  most  of  the  other  institutions  have  been  developed  rather   in  the  1990’s.  In  1992  is  formed  the  Council  of  the  Baltic  Sea  States  (CBSS)  for  the  first   time  in  Copenhagen,  it  involves  the  same  countries  but  with  different  names  (a  unified   Germany,  the  three  Baltic  Counties,  and  Russia),  and  include  as  well  Norway,  and  even   Iceland   in   1995.   This   council   was   established   by   the   conference   of   the   BSR   Foreign   Ministers,   as   solution   facing   the   new   geopolitical   stakes   in   the   region,   in   order   to   secure   democracy   and   economic   development.   It   provides   forum   of   ideas,   action-­‐plans,   and   kind   of   projects   linked   with   spatial   planning.   However,   the   organisation   remains   more   as  a  political  symbol  rather  than  a  real  implementation  tool  of  territorial  policies.  It  can                                                                                                                           45

EUROPEAN  UNION,  2014,  “  Transport”,  in  Eurostat  Regional  Yearkbook,  p.211-­‐232,  LUXEMBOURG,  p.213  


be consider  as  a  diplomatic  tool  on  behalf  of  the  common  interest  of  the  Baltic  Sea  States   intending  to  influence  locals,  regions,  and  decision  makers.  The  second  most  important   organisation   is   the   VASAB   (Vision   And   Strategies   Around   the   Baltic   Sea).   This   intergovernmental  network  created  in  1992  within  the  CBSS  works  jointly  on  a  spatial   development   concept   for   the   BSR.   We   have   also   the   UBC   (Union   of   the   Baltic   Cities),   and   later,   many   other   organisations   and   institutions   were   born,   aiming   to   tackle   different   topics.   So   many   organisations   specialised   about   environment   (Baltic   21,   BSR   Energy   cooperation,  etc...),  economy  (Baltic  Sea  Trade  Union,  Baltic  Sea  Chambers  of  commerce   association,  etc...),  or  even  cultural  (ARS  Baltica,  Baltic  Sea  NGO  forum,  Baltic  University   Programme,   etc...).   So   the   concept   of   Baltic   Sea   Region   has   been   understood   as   a   real   opportunity   by   the   states,   after   a   complex   synthesis   of   historical   and   social   practices.   This   early   and   strong   institutionalisation   that   was   supposed   to   be   difficult   for   the   BSR   after   the   WWII   has   been   rather   successful.   This   new   regionalism   is   a   tool   to   counterweight  the  multilateral  forces  of  globalisation,  the  growing  competition  between   regions,   and   rebalances   the   European   economy   and   power   concentrated   in   the   “blue   banana”46.   So   at   this   period,   the   main   common   issues   of   the   whole   BSR   were   on   one   hand   the   lack   of   external   accessibility   and   connections   with   Europe,   and   the   environmental  issue  on  the  other  hand.    Consequently,   we   can   see   that   the   establishment   of   a   region   within   Europe   appeared   as   a   natural   evolution   in   the   late   1990’s.   These   geographical   units   are   used   by   the   EU   to   organise   cross-­‐border   territorial   cooperation.   Hence,   the   Euroregion   Baltic   was   established   in   1998   but   only   in   the   South-­‐east   region   of   the   Baltic   Sea,   with   8   regions   in   Denmark,   Lithuania,   Poland,   Russia   and   Sweden.   But   at   this   time,   funds   for   cooperation   were   still   very   low,   and   the   projects   were   less   important.   However,   this   institution  participated  to  the  establishment  of  new  ETC  programmes  in  the  region,  the   creation  of  a  European  vision  for  the  BSR,  and  the  cooperation  between  EU  institutions   and  regional  organisations  around  the  Baltic  Sea.  The  Baltic  Euroregion  participated  also   to  the  creation  of  the  Interreg  IV-­‐A  South  Baltic  programme,  gathering  for  the  first  time   5   countries   while   before   only   smaller   programme   existed   under   Interreg   III-­‐A   like   for   instance   DK/SE,   DK/DE,   LT/PL/RU,   and   PL/DE.   Moreover,   regarding   the   strong   cooperation   traditions   of   the   BSR,   the   region   has   been   the   first   in   Europe   to   host   a   “European  Union  Strategy”  (EUSBSR),  approved  by  the  EU  Commission  in  2009.  This  is   the   first   macro-­‐regional   strategy   in   Europe,   a   strategy   aiming   to   rebalance   powers   between   MS   and   to   create   an   intermediate   scale   of   governance   between   the   national   scale   and   the   European   scale.     In   the   Baltic   Sea,   the   EUSBSR   seeks   to   streamline   and   reinforce  the  territorial  cooperation,  in  order  to  improve  the  territorial  cohesion  of  the   region.   It   gathers   the   classic   countries   surrounding   the   sea,   but   only   from   the   EU:   Sweden,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Poland.  The  EUSBSR   has   3   pillars;   these   are   to   make   the   BSR:   save   the   sea,   connect   the   region,   and   finally   increase   prosperity.   As   we   could   expect,   the   regional   accessibility   is   one   of   the   3                                                                                                                           46

Expression  appeared  in  the  1990’s  to  designate  the  most  dense,  active  and  rich  region  of  Europe  from  UK  to   North  Italy.    


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

cornerstones, but  shall  not  be  in  contradiction  with  another  cornerstone:  the  sustainable   development.   We   can   see   also   that   “connect   the   region”   includes   transport   but   also   energy,   this   is   a   way   to   cross   both   exigencies.   This   institution   is   not   a   funding   programme,  but  its  strategy  proposes  to  bring  together  all  the  cooperation  forces  on  this   common  macro-­‐regional  strategy.   Then,  in  this  context,  a  transnational  ETC  programme  for  the  whole  BSR  has  been   created   in   2000:   the   Interreg   III-­‐B.   Then,   it   followed   the   funding   periods   (2000-­‐2006,   2007-­‐2013,   2014-­‐2020),   but   the   new   Interreg   V-­‐B   has   have   seen   his   budget   increased   two-­‐fold   since   2000,   until   €278.6   million   for   2014-­‐2020.   It   includes   the   largest   conception  of  the  BSR  because  many  countries  participate:  EU  MS  like  Finland,  Estonia,   Latvia,   Lithuania,   Poland,   Germany,   Denmark   and   Sweden,   but   also   non   EU-­‐states   like   Russia,  Belarus,  and  Norway.  The  transport  issue  is  included  in  the  official  priority  axis   of   the   programme,   chosen   as   the   third   priority,   and   then   the   programme   supports   some   projects   on   medium   and   large   scales.   The   two   main   objectives   are   the   greening   of   transport   means   and   the   improvement   of   the   regional   mobility   through   TEN-­‐T   corridors.   For   example,   the   Interreg   IV-­‐B   financed   the   project   “Rail   Baltica   growth   Corridor”   in   order   to   improve   cooperation   and   communication   tools   between   rail   operators   on   the   corridor   Berlin-­‐Warsaw-­‐Kaunas-­‐Riga-­‐Tallinn-­‐Helsinki-­‐Saint-­‐ Petersburg.  It  is  indeed  a  “door-­‐to-­‐door  travel  planning  system”  with  multimodal  table   information,  dedicated  to  one  TEN-­‐T  corridor.  Plus  the  project  “Scandria”  has  developed   the   multimodal   facilities   in   the   Oresund   and   Berlin   regions   to   improve   this   part   of   the   TEN-­‐T  corridor  which  links  the  Baltic  and  the  Adriatic  seas  through  Central  Europe47.  At   the   same   time,   the   BSR   regions   counts   12   small-­‐scale   ETC   programmes   InterregA,   so   we   can   admit   that   the   region   is   densely   covered   by   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programmes   that   participate   actively   to   the   territorial   cohesion.   Among   them,   7   programmes   have   chosen   to   support   directly   transport,   including   the   South   Baltic   Programme.     So   finally,   all   this   argumentation   supports   many   specialists   and   politicians   that   were  claiming  in  the  early  2000’s  that  the  BSR  is  a  “Laboratory  for  Europe”48.  Indeed,  the   institutionalisation  didn’t  stop  to  grow,  trying  to  cooperate  for  territorial  cohesion,  and   by   extension   accessibility.   Moreover   we   can   notice   that   all   these   organisations   are   closely   cooperating,   between   EU   programmes   and   non-­‐EU   organisations.   Indeed,   the   VASAB   inspires   the   policies   chosen   by   the   Baltic   ETCs,   and   even   more   important,   the   EUSBR   has   triggered   and   supported   many   cooperation   initiatives   on   territorial   and   maritime   planning   between   ETC   programmes   (Euroregion,   Interreg   A   and   B),   EU   sectoral   policies   (CEF,   TEN-­‐T,   MoS)   and   Baltic   institutions   (CBSS,   VASAB,   HELCOM...).   And  in  order  to  complete  their  three  topics,  they  have  developed  the  “Horizontal  Action”,                                                                                                                           47

INTERREG  BALTIC  SEA  2007-­‐2013,  Sustainable,  Multimodal  and  Green  Transport  Corridors  –  Facilitating   Transport  in  the  BSR,  20p.,  p.  11  -­‐12  -­‐   (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐31)   48  WILLIAMS  Leena-­‐Kaarina,  2000,  The  Baltic  Sea  Region:  Forms  and  Functions  of  Regional  Cooperation,  revised   version  of  Master  degree  Thesis,  28p.,  p.2  


relevant for  many  objectives  and  sub-­‐objectives,  like  spatial  planning  for  example:  “the   EUSBSR   has   attributed   HELCOM   and   VASAB   a   prominent   role   in   promoting   Maritime   Spatial   Planning   (MSP)   in   the   BSR   together   with   other   stakeholders   according   to   the   Horizontal   Action   Spatial   Planning” 49 .   Horizontal   Action   triggers   also   cooperation   between  national  authorities,  local  decision  makers,  civil  society,  economic  actors,  NGOs,   universities,  in  order  to  elaborate  relevant  spatial  planning  for  the  region.  Otherwise,  it   could  be  compared  to  the  Triple  Helix  Cooperation,  inspired  from  Katri-­‐Liis  Reinmann,  in   other   words   “a   cooperation   among   three   societal   sectors:   the   public   sector,   the   business   community,   and   the   educational   establishment   at   the   regional,   national   and   multinational   levels”50.   Finally,   the   EUSBSR   is   a   direct   link   between   high   European   institutions   and   projects  implemented  by  the  ETC  programmes.  Indeed,  they  have  some  tools  such  as  the   “flagship   projects”   for   the   projects   that   are   answering   at   the   same   time   to   the   expectations   of   the   ETC   funding   programme,   and   to   the   EU   Strategy.   We   will   have   examples  of  cooperation  between  European  and  Pan-­‐Baltic  programmes  later.    Also  if  we  study  Transport  planning  on  the  Baltic  scale,  we  can  see  that  projects   are   developed   on   very   large   scales,   participating   at   the   same   time   to   the   EU   interest   through   TEN-­‐T   planning,   but   also   to   the   Baltic   interest   through   internal   regional   connections.   Hence   the   BSR   is   improving   both   external   accessibility   of   the   region   and   internal  transport  facilities.   3) Questioning  the  relevance  of  the  South  Baltic  cross-­‐border   cooperation  in  accessibility  issues   In   the   context   of   the   whole   BSR,   it   might   be   appropriate   now   to   explain   how   a   small-­‐scale   programme   such   as   Interreg   A   South-­‐Baltic   can   participate   and   have   an   impact   on   the   territorial   cohesion   of   the   SBR,   while   so   many   programmes,   with   much   more   funds,   already   exist.   More   precisely,   we   will   see   with   which   strategy   the   South   Baltic  programme  supports  Transport,  integrated  to  the  complex  overall  strategy  for  the   Baltic  Sea.  Therefore,  we  will  base  our  argumentation  on  the  functioning  of  the  previous   Interreg   programme,   to   understand   how   it   was   working   on   2007,   and   it   will   allow   us   later  to  explain  the  current  noticeable  outputs.     We   have   to   know   that   at   this   period   of   the   ERDF   funding,   the   ERDF   regulation   used  to  propose  many  topics  that  programmes  could  choose  as  objectives.  So  in  practice,   programmes  used  to  select  a  lot  of  them  to  cover  all  their  needs.  In  fact,  the  objectives   were   quite   blurred.     So   the   South   Baltic   Interreg   IV   proposed   in   2007,   2   Priority   Axis   (PA):”Economic  Competitiveness  and  Attractiveness”   and   “Common  Identity”.   This   first   PA   indicates  3  different  related  actions  in  order  to  foster  the  economic  competitiveness  and   stimulated   convergence   processes   over   cross-­‐border   regions   for   a   more   integrated   functional   market,   following   Lisbon   strategy   recommendations.   That’s   why   the                                                                                                                           49

HELCOM,  Official  Website  -­‐­‐areas/maritime-­‐spatial-­‐planning/horizontal-­‐action-­‐ spatial-­‐planning       50  REINMANN  Katri-­‐Liis,  2009,  “Euroregions  as  mechanisms  for  strengthening  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  the   Baltic  Sea  region”,  in  Trames  Journal  of  the  Humanities  and  Social  Sciences,  Estonian  Business  School,  Tallin  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

programme proposed   to   support   “Entrepreneurial   Development”,   “Integration   of   higher   education  and  Labour  markets”,  and  “Transport  Accessibility”.  Here  we  can  notice  that   Transport   was   integrally   considered   as   a   tool   for   economic   development,   while   the   second   PA   supports   projects   dealing   with   the   Management   of   the   Baltic   Sea   environment,  Renewable  Energies  and  sustainable  development  of  Tourism.  The  South   Baltic  Programme  described  3  specific  objectives  to  develop  Transport  Accessibility  as   we  can  read  in  the  Operational  Programme  of  2007:     -

“Preparation and   implementation   of   feasibility   studies   for   transport   bottlenecks   and   missing   hindering   formation   of   a   coherent   multimodal   transport   system   in   the   South   Baltic   area,  based  on  a  prioritised  list  of  investments  of  the  cross-­‐border  relevance.   Joint   actions   of   infrastructure   owners,   cargo   owners   and   traffic   operators   dedicated   to   quality  improvement  of  transport  connections  and  creation  of  new  links.   Provision   of   practical   solutions   to   increase   sustainability   and   quality   of   passenger   transport  services  in  the  South  Baltic  area.”51  

So here   we   can   analyse   the   strategy   of   the   programme   in   two   parts.   On   one   hand,   it   aimed   to   support   small-­‐scale   projects   improving   connections   and   multimodality   of   the   transport   networks,   for   accessibility   of   the   region   and   mobility   inside   the   area.   On   the   other  hand  it  promoted  the  development  of  sustainable  transports,  sustainable  in  term   of  environment  and  in  term  of  use.  Hence  we  assume  that  two  kinds  of  projects  would   have  been  supported:  the  ones  focusing  on  external  and  internal  mobility,  and  the  ones   supporting   innovative   solutions   for   sustainable   mobility.   However,   the   programme   specified   that   it   might   be   better   to   combine   both   exigencies.   Also,   the   location   of   the   programme  encouraged  them  to  give  special  attention  to  maritime  and  air  transports,  as   the   common   border   area   of   the   countries   is   a   sea   that   can   be   crossed   only   by   air   or   waterborne  transport  means.   Each   project   had   to   follow   some   requirements   in   order   to   be   in   line   with   the   priorities   of   the   programme   and   the   governance   practices   from   the   EU   regulation   and   the   Lisbon   Strategy   of   2007.   So   firstly,   every   applicant   had   to   be   aware   of   the   expectations   of   a   European   programme.   The   Lisbon   Strategy   of   the   EU   highlights   the   importance   of   economic   growth   through   knowledge   and   innovation,   in   order   to   create   more   jobs   and   make   the   region   attractive.   At   the   same   time,   the   Gothenburg   strategy   encourages   all   policies   to   include   sustainable   development   in   all   their   initiatives   (understood   as   meeting   the   needs   of   the   present   generation   without   compromising   those  of  future  generations).  Also  the  EU  General  regulation  requires  the  application  of   the  equal  opportunities  principle,  without  favours,  or  aid  inequalities,  in  order  to  respect   the   rule   of   competition.   So   in   a   nutshell,   the   South   Baltic   programme   promoted   the   cross-­‐cutting   themes   within   applying   projects52.   The   second   major   requirement   was   the   application  of  good  governance  practices  through  horizontality  of  actors.  It  means  that   projects   had   to   involve   partners   from   several   branches   of   the   society:   local   special   planners,   local   decision   makers,   economic   actors,   universities,   associations   and   NGOs,                                                                                                                           51

Op.  Cit.  Operational  programme  2007-­‐2013,  p.30    Idem,  p.  38-­‐39  



local authorities  such  as  ports,  airports,  public  transports,  etc...  Thirdly,  as  in  every  ETC   programme,   every   cross-­‐border   project   should   be   supported   only   if   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation  aspect  is  vital.  There  are  two  reasons  for  the  cross-­‐border  cooperation:  the   first  possibility  is  the  need  to  cooperate  because  the  project  transnational  by  nature  and   need  the  cooperation  between  foreign  actors  (e.g.  a  maritime  connection  or  a  transport   real  time  information  in  the  Baltic  sea  requires  the  cooperation  of  ports  and  actors  from   different  countries),  and  the  second  possibility  is  the  need  to  cooperate  in  order  to  share   knowledge   and   elaborate   best   practice   examples   (e.g.   several   towns   cooperating   to   tackle  the  issue  of  rural  accessibility,  by  working  together  on  a  common  solution).  The   applicants  should  not  be  interested  in  the  Interreg  programme  only  as  a  potential  source   of  funding,  but  as  an  opportunity  to  cooperate  in  their  interest.  And  of  course  finally,  the   programme  should  cover  the  tasks  that  are  not  treated  by  the  local  actors  or  the  states.   Hence   the   project   may   be   a   necessary   action   that   would   not   have   been   handled   by   regular  actors,  and  should  have  a  real  positive  impact  on  the  region.  These  criteria  are  in   line  with  the  regulation  adopted  by  all  the  ETC  programmes,  on  all  scales  and  regions.     However,   the   Interreg   A   differs   from   other   programmes   by   its   small-­‐scale   aspect.   Actually,   this   aspect   makes   the   programme   relevant   in   territorial   cohesion   among   the   numerous   other   programmes.   The   South   Baltic   programme   has   much   less   financial   means   at   first,   indeed   for   2007-­‐3013,   the   SB   programme   received   €60.7   million   from   ERDF53  while  the  Baltic  Sea  programme  (Interreg  B)  received  for  the  same  period  more   than   €208   million,   or   programmes   such   as   CEF   are   talking   about   billions.   Moreover,   the   programme  area  is  obviously  smaller  than  these  programmes;  consequently  the  impact   would  be  lower.  So  in  fact,  there  is  no  competition  between  the  programmes,  all  of  them   have   different   tasks,   on   different   scales,   and   may   have   a   complementary   action   to   be   even  more  efficient.  Also,  the  subjects,  the  objectives  are  different  in  the  SB  Programme   as  said  Robert  Mazurkiewicz,  programme  manager  at  the  Joint  Technical  Secretariat  of   the  SB  programme  (JTS)  during  an  interview:   “Our   projects   should   focus   on   services   for   cargo,   ports,   and   passengers,   to   improve   the   overall   situation.   The   Baltic   region   Programme   is   more   focused   on   corridor   or   TEN-­‐T   approach.   Our   approach  is  bottom-­‐up  so  we  are  not  imposing  any  idea  to  the  projects”  

So there  are  two  important  statements  in  this  sentence.  At  first,  we  can  see  that  the  SB   programme  tries  to  complement  the  action  of  the  bigger  ones  by  improving  local  details,   but  that  are  very  important  for  the  overall  efficiency.  For  example,  while  the  Baltic  Sea   programme  tries  to  improve  the  maritime  connection  between  North-­‐eastern  Germany   ports  and  Danish  ports  in  the  context  of  the  TEN-­‐T  corridor  between  Baltic  and  Adriatic,   the  SB  programme  focuses  on  the  services  provided  by  associated  ports  (as  partners  in   an   Interreg   project).   These   smaller   cross-­‐border   projects   can   implement   for   instance   multimodal   tickets   connecting   trains,   public   transports,   and   ferries,   or,   some   real   time   information   systems   about   transport   connections,   or   even   some   web-­‐base   information   about   legislation   and   ports   regulations   for   cargos...   Therefore   it   would   make   the                                                                                                                           53

INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  Official  Website  Interreg  2007-­‐3013  -­‐  http://2007-­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐01)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

corridors smoother  and  coherent,  as  we  read  in  the  Operational  Programme  “(removing)   bottlenecks   and   missing   links”,   “quality   improvement   of   transport   corridors”.   Second   statement   is   about   the   bottom-­‐up   approach.   Indeed,   the   small-­‐scale   aspect   of   the   SB   programme   favours   the   initiatives   from   the   target   groups,   and   does   not   give   precise   orders,   except   in   the   description   of   their   Operational   programme.   In   reality,   it   allows   “target  groups  and  service  delivers”  to  act  at  the  “microimplementation  level”,  in  the  sense   that   “policy   really   is   made   at   the   local   level”,   according   to   the   definition   of   Richard   Matland54.  Hence  the  principle  of  the  programme  was  to  give  the  means  for  those  local   cross-­‐border  actors  to  achieve  some  projects  that  are  necessary  from  their  point  of  view   of   local   expert,   or   local   actor.   That’s   why   we   can   assume   now   that   the   Interreg   IV   has   supported  some  small-­‐scale  programmes,  integrated  in  the  general  EU  Strategy  for  the   Baltic  Sea  or  corresponding  to  local  needs.    Indeed,  many  conferences  and  meetings  are   organised   either   by   the   CBSS   or   the   EUSBSR   in   order   to   invite   several   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programmes,   and   to   streamline   the   work   of   all   these   programmes   on   the   same  region.  Moreover,  Interact,  as  a  coordination  programme  from  ERDF,  disseminate   knowledge   in   all   cross-­‐border   and   territorial   cooperation   programmes   to   inform   the   workers  and  coordinate  all  their  actions.     So  in  conclusion,  this  programme  is  suppose  to  participate  to  some  extend  to  the   territorial  cohesion  of  the  SBR,  as  it  supports  some  cross-­‐border  projects  and  knowledge   sharing   about   solutions   for   external   and   internal   accessibility,   and   also   for   sustainable   mobility.   However   it   seems   hard   to   evaluate   globally   the   contribution   of   the   SB   programme   to   accessibility   and   transport   sustainability,   as   the   projects   are   implemented   on   a   small-­‐scale.   That’s   why   we   will   argue   here   that   the   programme   participated   to   the   harmonisation   of   the   transport   means   across   the   SBR,   through   cross-­‐ border   cooperation   and   knowledge   sharing.   Indeed,   as   we   saw   in   the   first   section,   the   Baltic  Sea  Region  knew  a  very  complex  history  that  entailed  particular  socio-­‐economic   stakes,  and  different  domestic  spatial  planning  policies  around  the  sea.  At  the  same  time,   we   noticed   that   the   region   comprises   many   common   stakes   that   made   us   realise   the   importance   of   cooperation,   a   cooperation   also   relevant   if   we   consider   that   such   disparities   can   be   seen   as   complementarities.   The   second   section   showed   us   the   importance   of   transport   development   for   the   EU   territorial   cohesion   policy,   on   the   European  level  and  the  Baltic  level,  and  what  funds  are  involved.  That’s  why,  finally  we   can  argue  that  the  small-­‐scale  harmonisation  from  the  SB  programme  may  be  included   in  the  general  trend  of  territorial  cohesion  supported  at  both  European  and  Baltic  level.   Then  how  are  implemented  the  small-­‐scale  cross-­‐border  projects  on  the  spot  in  order  to   have  coherent  transport  and  sustainability  policies?  


MATLAND  Richard  E.,  1995,  “Synthesizing  the  Implementation  Literature:  The  Ambiguity-­‐Conflict  Model  of   Policy  Implementation”,  Journal  of  Public  Administration  Research  and  Theory:  J-­‐PART,  p.145-­‐174,  Oxford   University  press  -­‐­‐ 1858%28199504%295%3A2%3C145%3ASTILTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-­‐Z  (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐01)  




After having  an  overview  of  the  programming  context  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  we  will  prove   that   the   South   Baltic   programme,   even   with   small   scale   and   limited   funds   has   an   impact   on  territorial  cohesion  in  the  sense  that  its  action  tends  to  harmonise  transport  practices   in   the   region.   The   first   section   will   highlight   the   direct   effects   and   spin-­‐off   effects   produced   by   projects   answering   to   the   common   need   of   a   better   external   and   internal   accessibility  implemented  between  2007  and  2013.  The  second  section  will  describe  the   projects  harmonising  green  transports  in  the  region.    

A. A programme   trying   to   improve   and   harmonise   accessibility  across  the  South  Baltic  region   As   evoked   in   the   first   part,   accessibility   issue   refers   to   two   schemes:   it   is   at   the   same  time  a  common  issue  and  a  local  issue  of  development  for  regions  lagging  behind.   However,  it  seems  logic  that  the  harmonisation  of  the  transport  network  will  answer  to   both  issues.  Indeed  it  may  rebalance  transport  means  in  the  region,  reducing  the  gaps,   but   it   may   also   improve   the   overall   level   of   accessibility,   as   poor   and   rich   regions   are   connected   each   other.   That’s   why   we   will   explain   how   the   South   Baltic   programme   managed  the  implementation  of  projects,  and  then  explaining  two  relevant  examples.   1) Overall  analysis  of  the  projects  directly  dealing  with  transport   accessibility  –  quantitative  approach   In   order   to   have   a   general   view   of   the   action   of   harmonisation   of   the   South   Baltic   Programme   in   the   field   of   accessibility,   we   should   study   in   this   first   part   the   overall   results   of   the   transport   policy   of   the   programme   that   we   saw   in   the   first   part   (I.B.3).   That’s   why   we   will   see,   according   to   the   objectives   of   the   programme,   what   kind   of   actors   applied   to   the   ERDF   grants   and   which   projects   have   been   chosen.   Finally,   we   will   see   why   only   a   qualitative   study   of   some   projects   can   indicate   the   real   impact   of   the   programme.   So   we   saw   previously   that   the   objectives   of   the   programme   to   improve   the   accessibility  of  the  region  were  adapted  to  the  specific  needs  of  this  region  comprising   high   gaps   and   disparities.   Hence,   the   programme   was   planning   in   2007   to   support   projects   aiming   to   supress   bottlenecks,   to   improve   multimodality   and   services   for   transport   operators   and   end-­‐users,   and   to   improve   the   sustainability   of   transport   means.   This   was   under   the   priority   1.3,   pointing   the   need   to   increase   the   economic   attractiveness   of   the   region   (PA   1),   through   transport   (priority   1.3).   In   this   context,   9   calls   have   been   launched   for   the   2007-­‐2013   programming   period,   and   the   Joint   Technical  Secretariat  received  177  project  applications,  involving  990  project  partners.   However,   the   accessibility   priority   was   not   the   area   that   received   the   most   applications,   due  to  the  low  number  of  projects  required  comparing  to  the  money  allocated.  Indeed,     35    

Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

the programme   planned   to   allocate   almost   €6.1   million   for   projects   linked   with   transports,  and  most  of  the  time,  these  projects  require  a  quite  high  amount  of  funds  if   they  want  to  be  efficient  enough,  that’s  why  we  can  imagine  that  the  programme  did  not   need   a   big   amount   of   projects   dealing   with   transports.   So   in   total,   only   10   projects   applied  in  this  field,  and  6  of  them  have  been  selected.  Most  of  the  partners  involved  in   the   project   were   from   Rostock   (11   approved   partners),   8   partners   were   from   the   Gdansk  urban  area  (the  “Threecity”),  6  from  the  Blekinge  region,  5  from  the  Kronoberg   (SE),   5   partners   from   Klaipeda,   and   many   others   from   different   cities   and   regions   of   the   programme  area.  Also,  few  projects  have  been  accepted  during  very  later  stages  of  the   programme,   during   mini-­‐calls   or   similar   initiatives.   For   example,   Mobile   Together   launched   in   2013   aimed   to   facilitate   and   find   new   solutions   for   car-­‐pooling   in   the   context  of  sustainable  mobility  improvement  in  rural  areas.     But   main   projects   dealing   with   accessibility   could   be   considered   as   more   powerful,   because  they  had  actually  more  ERDF  funds  and  started  earlier  in  the  programme.  So  the   6   projects   responding   to   the   objective   1.3   of   the   South   Baltic   programme   were   about   different   topics,   rather   complementary.   The   topic   of   maritime   accessibility,   very   important   in   the   SBR,   has   been   treated   through   three   projects.   INTERFACE   and   INTERFACE  PLUS  were  two  following  projects  that  aimed  to  improve  facilities  for  ports   in   the   SBR,   and   to   implement   innovative   solutions   for   multimodality   and   cross-­‐border   connections,  as  we  will  see  later.  In  the  same  topic  OVERSIZE  Baltic  was  a  project  aiming   to   improve   quality   of   oversize   cargo   transportation   services   and   interoperability   of   relocation   of   large   unities   in   the   SBR.   Furthermore,   two   projects   aimed   to   raise   public   awareness   for   cycling   and   electric   mobility   (ABC.MULTIMODAL   and   ELMOS   projects).   The  main  goal  was  to  try  to  change  people’s  minds  and  behaviours  in  order  to  improve   sustainable  mobility  in  urban  areas  mostly.  And  at  last  but  not  least,  one  project  aimed   to   improve   attractiveness   of   regional   airports   through   adoption   of   common   marketing   solutions:   South   Baltic   Global   Access   (SBGA).   The   goal   here   was   to   raise   external   accessibility   of   the   region   through   the   development   of   new   air   routes.   So   in   total,   four   projects   aimed   to   improve   the   external   and   regional   accessibility:   at   first   external   accessibility   through   SBGA,   and   secondly   regional   accessibility   through   INTERFACE,   INTERFACE  PLUS  and  OVERSIZE  Baltic.  Also  two  projects  improved  internal  and  urban   transports  through  ELMOS  and  ABC.MULTMODAL  projects.   But  some  other  projects  are  dealing  with  accessibility  partially,  while  it  is  not  their   area,  nor  the  priority  for  which  they  have  been  chosen.  For  example,  some  projects  aim   to  improve  the  environmental-­‐friend  aspect  of  fuels,  or  want  to  develop  some  Offshore   Wind  Farms  to  develop  the  supply  of  sustainable  energy  in  the  SBR,  or  others  wants  to   find   solutions   fro   the   coastal   planning,   etc.   Indeed,   we   can   see   that   the   use   of   electric   mobility  is  increasing,  and  even  supported  by  EU  policies  and  projects,  that’s  why  finally,   all   projects   fostering   green   energies   are   in   fact   linked   with   the   goal   of   sustainable   transport  as  they  organise  the  supply  of  greener  energies.  In  this  field,  we  can  take  the   example   of   MarTech   LNG   project   that   developed   the   supply   of   Liquefied   Natural   Gas,   especially  for  ship  fuelling,  in  the  SBR.  We  can  also  quote  the  OFFER  project  (about  OWE,    


Offshore Wind  Energy)  that  facilitated  and  enabled  the  set  up  of  very  technical  studies   about  the  wind  opportunities  in  the  SBR  in  order  to  settle  a  South  Baltic  OWE  cluster   in   the   region.   Consequently   we   can   assume   that   the   character   of   sustainability   aimed   by   the  South  Baltic  Programme  in  the  accessibility  priority  was  highly  complementary  with   all  the  measures  about  green  energies.     Furthermore,  all  these  projects  are  financed  between  €900  000  and  €2  million  euros,   and  involve  in  average  not  more  than  one  dozen  of  direct  partners,  and  often  less.  That’s   why   we   can   say   that   these   are   small-­‐scale   projects,   included   in   a   large   EU   and   Baltic   transport  policy.  In  this  context,  it  might  be  irrelevant  for  us  to  draw  conclusions  about   general   figures   of   the   results   of   the   projects.   Indeed,  small-­‐scale   projects   have   obviously   small-­‐scale   results,   on   few   cities   involved   in   the   project,   or   very   delimited   regions.   Moreover,  the  projects  have  often  an  innovative  character  that  comprises  a  possibility  of   very   limited   results   sometimes.   For   example,   the   project   Mobile   Together   triggered   several   studies   about   sustainable   mobility   in   rural   areas   and   car-­‐pooling,   but   nowadays,   its  tangible  results  are  quasi-­‐inexistent.  So  in  fact,  all  these  projects  have  often  tangible   effects,  but  actually,  the  majority  of  the  results  is  not  always  tangible  and  corresponds   more   to   influence   on   people’s   mind,   or   innovative   initiatives,   feasibility   studies.   In   other   words,  these  projects  might  be  very  useful  as  a  first  step  toward  a  new  shift  in  people’s   behaviours  or  towards  new  clusters  or  new  partnerships.     We   might   have   more   details   about   the   direct   and   spin-­‐off   effects   of   these   projects   by   studying   in   a   qualitative   way   some   of   the   best   examples   of   accessibility   projects   that   we   have  quote  previously.   2) Testing  the  efficiency  of  the  multimodal  maritime  access:   the  INTERFACE  projects   Developing   the   maritime   economy   is   a   significant   stake   for   a   programme   gathering  countries  sharing  the  same  sea.  It  deals  with  fisheries,  tourism,  environment   and   most   importantly   for   our   thematic:   with   transport   and   accessibility.   As   the   South   Baltic   Programme   gives   the   opportunity   to   set   up   some   original   projects   that   are   not   usually  developed  by  states,  the  INTERFACE  project  is  a  good  example  that  could  have   been  barely  developed  without  such  cross-­‐border  cooperation.  We  will  see  in  this  part,   the  process  of  implementation  and  the  different  roles  of  the  involved  actors.  Hence  we   will   be   able   to   explain   to   what   extend   this   project   is   at   the   same   time   a   tool   of   harmonisation   of   transport   means   both   in   the   South   Baltic   area,   and   also   the   intrinsic   cross-­‐border  aspect  of  this  project.  In  April  2009  the  Hanseatic  City  of  Rostock  (DE)  as   the   Lead   Beneficiary,   launched   the   INTERFACE   project,   helped   by   an   ERDF   contribution   of   €   1  251  450.   This   project   contributed   to   enhance   the   transport   accessibility,   a   goal   included   in   the   “Priority   Axis   1”   of   the   South   Baltic   Programme   2007-­‐2013,   that   deals   with  “Economic  Competitiveness”55.                                                                                                                             55

Op.  Cit.  Operational  programme  SB  Interreg  IV,  p.29-­‐30  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Indeed, the   foot   passenger   ferry   connections   have   totally   decreased   during   the   last   decades,   in   the   advantage   of   cars   and   cargo   transports.   Consequently,   foot   passenger   services   and   public   transport   in   ferry   ports   of   the   SBR   have   not   been   modernised   and   the   SBR   interfaces   were   missing   infrastructures   for   the   connections   between   city   centres   and   ports.   A   benchmark   study 56  explains   in   details   for   each   participating   port,   what   should   be   renovated,   changed,   or   created   in   order   to   improve   the  ferry  port  activity  and  the  passenger  facilities.  This  study  has  been  led  by  the  project   coordinator  of  the  programme,  the  planning  and  consulting  German  company  PLANCO   Consulting   GmbH,   based   in   Hamburg   and   represented   by   Jens   Masuch.   In   this   context,   the  partners   from   Germany,   Denmark,  Sweden  and  Poland,  coordinated  by  Jens  Masuch,   set   up   a   plan   in   order   to   develop   cross-­‐border   passenger   trafficking   to   “a  comfortable,   cheap  and  environmental  friendly  alternative  to  travel  within  the  South  Baltic  area”57  as  it   is   explained   in   the   presentation   brochure   of   the   programme.   More   precisely,   the   objectives   of   the   INTERFACE   project   aimed   to   improve   the   service   environment   of   the   ferry   ports   for   foot   passengers   like   accessibility   services,   upgrading   terminals   and   harbour  surrounding  areas,  implementing  information  system,  promoting  cross-­‐border   and   multimodal   connections   and   more   generally,   raising   the   political   awareness   of   maritime  actors  about  cross-­‐border  networks.  Then  the  expected  benefits  were  directed   towards   passenger   comfort,   traffic   operators   gaining   new   costumers,   and   South   Baltic   regions  developing  tourism  economy.     Resulting   from   all   the   reflexion   process   between   the   different   actors,   the   INTERFACE   project   developed   many   connections   between   South   Baltic   ports.   For   example,   since   2010   a   new   ferry   line   has   been   operating   between   Gdynia   (PL)   and   Baltijsk   (Kaliningrad)   operated   by   ŻEGLUGA   GDAŃSKA   Sp.   z   o.o.,   and   from   2011   catamarans   can   also   do   the   connection.   Also   pre-­‐existing   ferry   connections   have   been   strengthened   like   Rostock-­‐Trelleborg,   Rostock-­‐Nykøbing   Falster,   and   Karlskrona-­‐ Gdynia.  Moreover,  the  best  example  of  this  cross-­‐border  cooperation  resides  in  the  set   up  of  a  web-­‐based  information  portal,  launched  in  July  2012.  informs   foot   passenger   about   facilities   between   port   terminals   and   bus   or   railway   stations,   providing   links   to   schedules   of   public   transport   providers.   This   information   portal   gathers  all  necessary  information  travel  from  one  single  source,  for  computers  or  smart   phones.  Also,  the  port  administrations  and  the  different  transport  companies  involved  in   this   information   portal   have   streamlined   their   scheduled   to   ease   the   use   of   transport   facilities  by  end  users.    


INTERFACE,  Official  website  -­‐ port_benchmark_study_summary.pdf  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐7)   57  INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  2011,  JS,  Portfolio  –  Projects  of  the  South  Baltic  Cross-­‐border  Cooperation   Programme  2007-­‐2013,  Gdansk,  Joint  Technical  Secretariat,  72  p.,  p.25  


Figure 4  -­‐  An  insight  of  the  Portlink  information  portal  (screenshot  )  –  Website  designed  by  the   German  developer  companies    “Be:deuten”,  “Büro  -­‐  Jan  B.  Magnussen”  and  “Nets”  (source:   Interface  website)  

Therefore   we   can   see   that   INTERFACE   helped   the   development   of   ferry   connections   throughout   the   South   Baltic   coast,   enhancing   both   ferry   connections   and   foot  passenger  facilities,  but  also  harmonising  transport  schedules  across  the  sea.   Thereafter   the   project   has   been   even   further   developed   and   moved   into   INTERFACE  PLUS  that  gave  the  opportunity  to  implement  new  original  ideas.  One  of  the   goals   was   to   re-­‐launch   the   ferry   connection   between   Poland   (ports   of   Darłowo   and   Kołobrzeg)  and  the  Danish  island  of  Bornholm  (port  of  Nexø).  Indeed,  according  to  the   benchmark58  analysis   from   the   Polish-­‐German   company   DP   Consulting,   95.1%   of   the   survey  respondents  consider  the  Bornholm  Island  as  an  attractive  touristic  destination   and   67.3%   were   aware   of   the   touristic   attractions   available   in   Bornholm.   Considering   this   potential,   the   terminal   of   Nexø   has   been   re-­‐constructed   in   2013   and   the   one   in   Darłowo   in   2015.   However,   the   Polish   ferry   operator   KZP,   targeted   by   the   project   coordination,  did  not  match  the  demand  that  was  expected.  That’s  why  despite  the  line   reopened  in  2013,  no  ferry  company  is  operating  yet  between  Darłowo/Kołobrzeg  and   Nexø.   But   the   other   idea   has   been   successfully   implemented:   the   ferry   connection   between  Rostock  and  Nykøbing  Falster  is  complemented  from  summer  2012,  by  a  cross-­‐ border   multimodal   ticket.   Concretely   it   allows   passengers   to   reach   directly   the   Port   of   Rostock  from  the  Railway  Station,  to  take  the  ferry  to  the  port  of  Gedser,  where  the  same                                                                                                                           58

Op.  Cit,  INTERFACE  Official  Website  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

connection is   possible   between   the   port   and   the   railway   station   of   Nykøbing   Falster.   Hence  the  possibility  for  foot  passengers  to  reach  one  Railway  Station  in  Germany  from   another   in   Denmark   or   vice-­‐versa,   by   taking   the   ferry   and   the   public   transports,   with   only  one  ticket:  the  so-­‐called  “InterCombi  ticket”.  The  crossing  is  operated  by  Scandlines,   a   ferry   company   that   is   historically   settled   in   this   SB   region   since   the   early   20th   century.   Logically,  this  multimodal  ticket  involves  several  different  economic  actors  such  as  ferry   company   and   public   transport   associations   from   Denmark   and   Germany   that   had   to   create   a   common   facilities   to   serve   the   tourists’   demand.   That’s   why   they   developed   schedules   adapted   to   each   other   in   order   to   reduce   the   waiting   time   for   passengers   in   the  interfaces,  and  they  provided  real-­‐time  information  system  on  schedules  included  in   a   dynamic   passenger   information   system   and   screened   in   terminals   and   bus   stations.   Moreover,   a   common   website   http://www.intercombi-­‐   gives   to   end-­‐users   the   possibility  to  be  informed  on  tourist  facilities,  to  check  timetables  of  connections  and  to   buy   InterCombi   tickets.   This   system   is   unique   in   the   region   and   inspires   currently   many   other   stakeholders   across   the   Baltic   Sea.   Indeed,   the   main   actors   in   charge   of   this   multimodal   ticket   and   real-­‐time   information   system   have   been   approached   by   people   from   the   Central   Baltic   Interreg   Programme   or   private   companies   that   would   like   to   cooperate,  however,  all  negotiations  are  still  ongoing  and  cannot  be  published  yet.   The  strategy  in  order  to  develop  the  tourism  economy  is  also  very  interesting  to   study  in  this  case59.  Indeed,  the  price  of  the  return  ticket  is  higher  when  you  go  back  on   the   same   day   (29€   instead   of   21€   for   an   adult).   It   means   that   the   tourists   are   slightly   pushed  to  spend  the  night  across  the  border,  and  more  precisely  to  spend  some  money   in   hostels   for   instance.   Moreover   both   Rostock   and   Nykøbing   Falster   are   taking   advantage   of   the   InterCombi   ticket   to   connect   promotion   activities   of   their   touristic   attractions.   For   example,   at   the   opening   of   the   Darwinium   in   the   Rostock   Zoo   in   September  2012,  all  stakeholders  gathered  their  means  to  create  a  common  promotion   flyer  for  the  Zoo.  Since  this  experience,  the  representatives  from  the  tourism  sector  have   multiplied  this  kind  of  advertisement  method  toward  the  users  of  the  multimodal  ticket.   So   we   can   admit   here   that   under   the   motto   “Walk   the   Baltic-­‐Take   the   Ferry!”   the   INTERFACE  PLUS  project  participated  as  well  to  the  development  of  the  maritime  foot   passenger  transport,  in  favour  of  port  activities,  ferry  operators  and  tourism  economy.   Moreover,  we  have  to  highlight  the  importance  of  the  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  this   context,   without   which   such   ferry   ports   cooperation   would   have   been   less   developed   and   the   tourism   would   have   certainly   not   benefit   from   the   pooling   of   stakeholders.   Furthermore,  in  order  to  succeed  such  cross-­‐border  projects,  the  cooperation  between   stakeholders  has  to  be  coordinated.  The  first  INTERFACE  project  was  launched  and  led   by   the   Hanseatic   city   of   Rostock,   gathering   municipalities   and   port   authorities   of   Guldborgsund  (DK),  Karlskrona  (SE),  Trelleborg  (SE),  Gdynia  (PL)  and  Gdansk.  Here,  the   port   of   Baltijsk   in   Kaliningrad   had   been   included   in   the   project   as   an   external   participant,  but  this  involvement  will  be  discussed  at  the  end  of  this  thesis.  However,  the   second   INTERFACE   PLUS   project   was   led   by   the   Public   Transport   Association   of                                                                                                                           59

INTERCOMBI  TICKET,  Official  Website  -­‐http://www.intercombi-­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐7)  


Warnow, a   municipality   of   the   Rostock   urban   area   (VVW,   meaning   Verkehrverbund   Warnow),   represented   by   Günter   Gladisch.   They   had   to   organise   the   public   transport   connection   from   the   station   to   the   port,   in   collaboration   with   the   Port   Authority   of   Rostock.  Across  the  Baltic  Sea,  the  Danish  actors,  mainly  the  Guldborg  Municipality,  had   the  responsibility  to  improve  the  public  transport  connection  between  the  port  and  the   station   of   Nykøbing   Falster.   The   Ministry   of   Transport   Building   and   Regional   Development   Mecklenburg-­‐Vorpommern   and   the   Regional   Planning   Association   Mittleres   Mecklenburg   Rostock   supported   the   lead   beneficiaries   from   Rostock   throughout   the   implementation   of   the   project.   As   we   saw   before,   Jens   Masuch   coordinated  all  those  cross-­‐border  initiatives  from  the  independent  consulting  company   PLANCO  Consulting  GmbH.  As  we  assume,  the  common  goal  of  those  actors  was  also  to   involve   ferry   operators   in   the   projects   of   creating   connections   and   InterCombi   ticket.   However   considering   the   market   obligations,   companies   always   need   an   economic   profitability   from   any   investment.   That’s   why   it   has   been   challenging   for   stakeholders   and  coordinator  to  convince  and  involve  ferry  companies,  but  the  Interreg  funding  eased   such  partnerships.   To   conclude,   we   have   already   noticed   that   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation   was   essential   for   the   success   of   those   maritime   projects.   But   furthermore,   we   can   consider   that  INTERFACE  and  INTERFACE  PLUS  have  participated  to  the  harmonisation  trend  of   the   port   facilities   across   the   Baltic   Sea,   by   supporting   ports   in   Sweden,   Denmark,   Germany,   and   Poland,   while   the   eastern   ports   were   lagging   behind.   Obviously   it   enhanced   the   harmonisation   of   transport   schedules   between   ports   and   city-­‐centres,   while   it   developed   common   portal   information   for   ferry   foot   passengers   across   the   SBR.   On  a  larger  scale,  the  project  of  the  Rostock  –Nykøbing  connection  could  be  even  linked   to   the   TEN-­‐T   priority   project   1   that   aims   to   develop   a   North-­‐South   rail   axis   between   Palermo   and   Berlin,   and   further   extended   to   Rostock   and   Nykøbing,   a   passage   considered   as   a   bottleneck 60 .   Considering   this   eventuality,   we   could   say   that   the   INTERFACE   PLUS   project   enhanced   the   transport   homogeneity   on   the   large   European   scale.  Also,  we  can  add  that  this  project  enhanced  both  external  accessibility  (as  a  TEN-­‐T   node   on   the   Adriatic-­‐Baltic   corridor),   and   internal   accessibility   as   it   promotes   connectivity   between   ports   of   the   region   and   sustainability   because   it   supports   transport  of  foot  passengers,  not  using  a  car.   3) Harmonisation   of   a   small   airport   network:   the   South   Baltic  Global  Access  project   About   air   accessibility,   the   region   is   facing   two   problems;   at   first   the   SBR   is   located  on  the  periphery  of  European  and  national  economic  centres,  which  makes  the   external  accessibility  difficult.  Secondly,  according  to  the  VASAB  Long-­‐term  Perspective   for  the  Baltic  Sea,  “the  main  issue  for  the  air  transport  network  in  the  BSR  is  the  capacity   for   developing   services   for   specific   destinations.   At   present,   smaller   metropolitan   areas                                                                                                                           60

ROSTOCK  PORT  AUTHORITY,  Official  Website  -­‐  http://www.rostock-­‐­‐ rostock/hero/projekte/mos-­‐rostock-­‐gedser.html  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐9)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

lack direct   connections   to   some   BSR   capitals,   as   well   as   to   other   secondary   metropolitan   areas,   which   makes   one-­‐day   business   trips   impossible”61 .   Therefore,   according   to   the   VASAB   agenda,   the   economic   needs   of   the   region,   but   also   many   CBC   of   the   BSR,   the   SOUTH   BALTIC   GLOBAL   ACCESS   (SBGA)   project   has   been   launched   in   2010,   by   the   Rostock   Business   and   Technology   Development   GmbH.   For   information,   this   is   the   economic  service  provider  of  the  Hanseatic  City  of  Rostock,  an  initiator  and  moderator   of   regional,   national   and   international   business   networks.   They   gathered   a   network   of   small   metropolitan   airports   that   needed,   like   the   Rostock   airport,   to   attract   new   air   connections.   That’s   why   they   have   been   joined   by   the   airports   of   Bornholm   (DK),   Småland  for  the  Växjö  municipality  (SE),  Palanga  for  the  Klaipeda  municipality  (LT),  and   Szczecin  (PL).  The  project  received  an  ERDF  contribution  of  1  582  000  €.   In  order  to  respond  to  the  air  accessibility  issue  of  the  region,  the  project  settled   several   goals   like   increasing   the   connectivity,   the   competitiveness   and   the   territorial   cohesion,   that   means   also   enabling   additional   airline   routes   and   hub   connection,   raising   passenger   flows   and   improving   the   internal   and   external   image   of   the   airport   destinations.62  That’s   why   the   project   is   divided   in   two   parts:   improvement   of   the   airport  connections  and  promotion  of  the  destinations.     The  first  and  most  important  part  of  the  project  involved  airports  in  knowledge   exchange   and   discussions   sessions   with   authority   representatives   and   industry   stakeholders   to   share   the   best   practices   and   improve   the   communication   between   actors.  Moreover,  project  partners  studied  together  the  PSO  regulations  of  the  different   countries,  in  a  workshop  in  Klaipeda  (during  the  second  SBGA  general  assembly  in  June   2011);  indeed  the  PSO  (Public  Service  Obligations)  are  established  by  Member  States  in   order   to   maintain   appropriate   scheduled   air   services   on   routes   which   are   vital   for   the   economic   development   of   the   region   they   serve.   Then,   a   cross-­‐border   market   analysis   has   been   realised   to   identify   a   number   of   potential   routes   and   annual   passengers   according  to  the  international  trends  and  market  opportunities.  This  study  was  designed   in  the  early  step  of  the  implementation  process,  in  spring  2011,  by  German  consultancy   “MKmetric  Gesellschaft  für  Systemplanung”  for  all  five  partner  airports  and  the  results   were   quite   promising:   “For  the  partner  airports  between  seven  and  thirteen  routes  were   identified   that   could   be   served   on   an   economically   viable   base.   The   total   additional   passenger   potential   for   the   airports   differs   between   50.000   and   380.000   annual   passengers”63.   Following   the   results   of   the   market   analysis,   the   project   partners   met   airline  representatives  at  different  Routes  Conferences  (Cagliari,  May  2011)  and  Berlin   (October  2011)  for  instance,  or  met  bi-­‐laterally  with  airline  representatives,  in  order  to   discuss   the   possibilities   to   establish   new   commercial   partnerships.   Also,   the   “Pilote   Route”  for  the  development  of  airports  activities  has  been  inaugurated  in  March  2011,                                                                                                                           61

VASAB  SECRETARIAT,  2010,  VASAB  Long-­‐Term  Perspective  for  the  Territorial  Development  of  the  Baltic  Sea   Region,  Visions  and  Strategies  for  the  Baltic,  57p.,  p,30   62  SBGA  Project,  Official  Website,  http://www.south-­‐baltic-­‐­‐objectives.html,  (accessed  2016-­‐ 03-­‐9)   63  Idem  


linking Rostock  and  Frankfurt  by  plane  for  the  first  time.  We  notice  here  that  this  market   potential  analysis  has  been  used  as  a  real  tool  in  order  to  convince  air  operators  to  open   some   new   lines.   Thus   Lufthansa   is   now   flying   Rostock-­‐Frankfurt   with   a   weekend   schedule,   and   has   been   followed   by   Cimber   Sterling   that   created   the   Småland-­‐ Copenhagen  route.    

Figure  5:  Example  of  the  market  potential  study  for  the  Vaxjo  Airort,  according  to  MK  Metric,  spring  2011   (source:  SBGA  Website)  

Then many  successful  agreements  entailed  the  launch  of  new  routes:  in  2011  and   2012,   each   airport   benefited   of   minimum   one   new   route   while   Szczecin   gained   the   maximum   of   5   routes,   in   total,   13   were   created.   Further   in   2013,   5   new   routes   were   launched,  as  we  can  see  the  details  on  the  following  maps.  The  second  part  of  the  project   aimed  to  gather  actors  from  the  tourism  sector,  able  to  promote  the  destinations  linked   to   the   airports.   Hence   the   municipalities   of   Klaipeda,   Rostock,   Småland,   Växjö,   and   the   Bornholm  Island  have  shared  their  knowledge  in  order  to  aware  tourists  and  potential   air   operators   about   the   attractions   and   the   potential   of   their   destinations   toward   business   partners,   travel   agencies   and   tourists.   This   initiative   participated   to   the   attractiveness   of   the   airports   while   the   project   partners   were   trying   to   create   new   air   paths.   Furthermore,  we  can  notice  the  differences  of  results  between  the  airports.  While   Palanga   gained   only   one   new   seasonal   connection   to   Moscow,   Szczecin   benefited   from   9   new   lines:   4   in   Poland,   2   in   Sweden   and   3   in   Great   Britain,   with   only   a   minority   operating  during  summer  season.  As  we  may  assume,  Poland  knows  also  an  important   workers  emigration  to  Sweden  and  Great  Britain,  explaining  the  high  demand  for  those   connections   before   the   SBGA   project.   In   contrary,   we   can   see   that   the   second   biggest     43    

Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

beneficiary, the   Rostock   airport,   gained   4   routes,   3   of   whose   are   leading   to   touristic   destination  only  (see  the  pictures  below).    

                         Map  1:  New  air  transport  routes  opened  at  partner  airports  in  2011  and  2012                                                            Map  2:  Further  new  routes  opened  in  spring  and  early  summer  2013      


Figure 6:  Maps  showing  the  results  of  the  SBGA  programme,  new  air  routes  opened   in  2012  and  2013  (Source:  SBGA  website)  

Finally, we   can   say   that   SBGA   project   has   fostered   the   harmonisation   of   air   transport   network   in   the   South   Baltic   region   since   it   triggered   the   creation   of   new  


connections for   small   metropolitan   airports,   and   opened   up   those   areas   to   external   accessibility.  On  a  higher  scale,  we  could  even  claim  that  the  results  of  the  project  were   in   accordance   with   the   global   ERDF   strategy   of   favouring   the   polish   transport   infrastructures.   Indeed   the   Szczecin   airport   became   the   showcase   of   the   project,   since   they   keep   on   using   the   market   analysis   methodology   of   the   project 64 ,   and   their   representatives  are  even  invited  to  participate  to  diverse  Baltic  CPC  meetings.   So   in   conclusion,   we   can   aim   that   the   South   Baltic   Programme   participated   to   the   trend   of   harmonisation   of   infrastructures   across   the   SBR,   and   hence,   it   enhanced   both   internal  and  external  accessibility.    

B. A programme   trying   to   foster   and   harmonise   sustainable   and  green  mobility  models      

This second  section  is  dedicated  to  the  harmonisation  trend  fostering  sustainable   and  green  transports  in  all  parts  of  the  SBR.  As  we  saw  that  the  Northern  and  Western   countries   of   the   region   were   focusing   on   sustainability,   while   Eastern   countries   were   still   in   the   developing   phase   of   their   transport   efficiency,   the   SB   programme   tried   to   impact   on   environmental-­‐friendly   policies   in   order   to   reduce   this   gap.   That’s   why   we   will  take  the  qualitative  examples  of  three  projects  to  illustrate  this  tendency.   1) Implementing  Electric  Mobility  solutions:  the  ELMOS  project   The   ELMOS   project   has   been   approved   by   the   Steering   Committee   of   the   SB   Programme  in  October  2011,  under  the  responsibility  of  the  Rostocker  Straßenbahn  AG   (RSAG)  as  the  lead  partner,  the  municipal  association  of  public  transports,  represented   by   Holger   Brüggmann   in   the   ELMOS   project.     It   gathers   as   well   the   following   municipalities:   Karlskrona   (SE),   Växjö   (SE),   Malbork   (PL)   and   Trąbki   Wielkie   (PL).   According  to  the  official  project  fact  sheet,  the  goal  was  to  develop  and  partly  introduce   electric  mobility  solutions  in  the  5  very  different  partner  cities,  depending  on  their  size,   their   capacity   and   their   needs,   that’s   why   in   some   cases,   the   solutions   have   been   integrated   to   the   pre-­‐existing   urban   transport   networks,   while   in   an   other   town,   the   project  entailed  the  installation  of  one  or  two  electric  bikes  in  the  centre.  Indeed,  the  city   partners   were   truly   different:   Rostock,   as   the   lead   partner   was   obviously   the   biggest   (200   000   inhabitants   in   2010),   then   the   two   Swedish   cities   are   much   smaller   (Växjö   counts  60  900  inhabitants  and  Karlskrona  35  000),  and  finally,  the  Polish  cities  partners   are   the   smallest   ones   (38   500   for   Malbork   and   9500   for   Trąbki   Wielkie).   So   we   can   imagine  that  the  results  were  obviously  different  regarding  the  gaps  between  the  cities.   The  upstream  work  of  the  project  was  to  explore  the  international  state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art  in  the   field   of   electric   mobility   between   the   five   cities   participating.   The   activities   were   including  lectures  by  experts  presenting  experiences  form  Germany,  Netherlands,  Great                                                                                                                           64

Interview  by  email  with  Marciej  Dziadosz,  Director  of  the  Szczecin  Airport,  on  the  2016-­‐02-­‐16,  see  Annexe  III  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Britain, France,   Sweden   and   Austria,   as   well   as   study   trips   and   participation   to   international   conferences   like   “Velo-­‐City   2013”   or   the   ECOMM   2013   to   gather   best   practices   from   all   over   the   world.   Also   the   best   practice   review   covers   as   much   the   short-­‐term  solutions  (surveys,  implementation,  marketing…),  as  the  long-­‐term  solutions,   especially  the  integration  in  the  public  transport  networks  for  example65.  Furthermore,   So  in  total  the  ELMOS  project  lasted  3  years,  and  beneficiated  from  an  ERDF  contribution   of  almost  €1  800  000.     Consequently,   each   city   adopted   different   solutions   inspired   by   the   ideas   gathered  during  the  study  trips.  Rostock  implemented  a  network  of  full-­‐automatic  rental   scheme   that   provides   pedelecs   (electric   bikes)   for   short-­‐time   use.   Hence   since   June   of   2014,  there  are  34  pedelecs  distributed  in  5  stations  in  Rostock  and  two  other  adjacent   municipalities   (the   Baltic   Sea   Resort   Nienhagen   and   Bad   Doberan)   that   share   a   concession   agreement   allowing   the   free   use   of   the   surface   for   pedelec   stations.   The   pedelecs  have  the  advantage  to  allow  cyclists  to  ride  on  longer  distance  as  the  effort  is   lower   than   on   a   normal   bike,   moreover,   this   facility   is   easily   usable   by   people   with   a   reduce  mobility  (elderly,  partly  disable  people...).  So  this  mean  of  electric  mobility  would   popularise  biking  among  more  classes  of  the  population  and  for  more  trip  schemes,  for   example,  it  could  foster  the  idea  of  biking  to  work  among  a  large  part  of  the  population   because  of  the  easy  ride,  the  possible  economy  of  time  and  money  and  the  eco-­‐friendly   character   of   this   mean   of   transport.   In   Rostock,   the   rental   system   is   fully   integrated   into   the   public   transport   company   Rostocker   Straßenbahn   AG   scheme.   The   end-­‐users   can   complement   their   mobility   path   with   pedelecs,   at   any   time,   and   especially   when   there   are   some   public   transport   gaps   or   free   time   (night   or   week-­‐end).   Also   a   website   (www.elros-­‐  is  dedicated  to  register  and  prepay  their  pedelec  from  home.  In   2015,   the   RSAG   implemented   new   rental   possibilities   for   users:   they   can   afford   combined   tickets   for   commuters   or   subscribe   monthly   or   annually   to   the   card   Elros   Pedelcs,   additionally   of   the   normal   public   transport   subscription.   Moreover,   the   pedelecs  stations  have  been  installed  near  to  the  strategic  points  of  the  city  that  allow   end-­‐users  to  rent  pedelecs  for  the  time  required  for  their  activity.  For  example,  if  they   follow  the  rental  scheme  of  the  shopping  activity,  they  can  combine  bus  and  electrically   assisted  bikes,  let  their  pedelec  locked  near  to  the  shopping  mall  for  the  time  they  need   (this   time   is   paid   in   advance   when   the   pedelec   is   rented),   and   they   can   come   back   in   the   same   way.   Also,   the   pedelecs   can   be   used   by   tourists   since   two   stations   are   located   near   to  the  sea  side  in  Nienhagen  and  Warnemünde.  So  the  city  of  Rostock  implemented  the   ELMOS   project,   by   installing   some   pedelecs   in   the   city,   in   a   quite   integrated   system   combined   with   the   public   transports.   Moreover,   Rostock   published   in   October   2014   a   Handbook   of   “Recommendations   drawn   from   the   Pilot   Project   of   the   Rostocker   Straßenbahn   AG”,   explaining   how   to   conduct   a   survey   in   order   to   implement   such   electric  mobility  system  in  a  city,  regarding  to  their  experience.                                                                                                                           65

INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  Official  Website  2007-­‐2013,  ELMOS  FACT  SHEET  -­‐  http://2007-­‐,  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐13)  


Figure 7:  Map  of  the  pedelec  network  in  Rostock  combined  with  attraction  locations  in  2014,  screenshot  fron   the  Recommendations  drawn  from  the  Pilot  Project  of  the  Rostocker  Straβenbahn  AG,  page  26                           (source:  RSAG  2014)  

However, the   other   cities   operated   in   a   different   way   and   have   simply   rented   out   few   pedelecs   during   a   specific   period,   as   a   test.   For   example,   in   Växjö,   the   municiality   organised  a  kick-­‐off  event  during  4  weeks  in  2013,  when  they  hired  30  pedelecs  among   the   population.   The   goal   was   to   popularise   the   pedelec   as   an   attractive   mean   of   transport.   The   ELMOS   project   in   Växjö   entailed   also   the   construction   of   a   bike   garage,   available  for  normal  bikes  and  electric  bikes.  Hence  the  pedelecs  can  be  charged  in  this   garage,   available   for   people   owning   an   ordinary   public   transport   card.   Also,   several   electric   charging   stations   have   been   allocated   in   many   parts   of   the   city,   and   the   municipality   is   currently   planning   to   raise   this   number   in   the   future66.     Consequently,   according   to   Wallin   Pär   who   was   in   charge   of   the   project,   “the  project  raise  the  need  of   good  and  fast  cycling  lanes  and  the  city  will  start  to  make  over  an  ordinary  cycle  lane”67.   In   general,  we  can  see  that  the  project  raised  the  awareness  about  cycling  in  Växjö,  because   the   sales   of   pedelecs   increased   a   little   bit   despite   the   “still   very   low   level”,   but   most   importantly,  the  city  installed  after  the  project  some  bikes  facilities  like  bicycle  pumps,   bike  counters  or  cycle  boxes  (on  the  Copenhagen  way).  Moreover,  in  2014,  the  ELMOS   project  allowed  the  installation  of  an  electric  car  dedicated  to  the  e-­‐car  pooling;  however   no   other   e-­‐car   has   been   bought   so   far.   So   Växjö   tested   the   e-­‐mobility   thanks   to   the   ELMOS  project,  but  the  ripple  effect  has  been  less  promising  than  in  Rostock,  as  we  will                                                                                                                           66

ELMOS  Project,  “Our  Outputs”,  p.22,  http://www.elmos-­‐,   (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐14),         67 th  Interview  by  mail  with  Wallin  Pär,  on  the  10  February  2016,  see  Annexe  III  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

see further  in  the  development.  In  Malbork,  Trąbki  Wielkie  and  Karlskrona,  the  results   have   been   less   promising   but   for   example,   the   small   town   of   Trąbki   Wielkie   has   built   some  new  bike  paths  since  the  implementation  of  the  project68,  and  they  are  eventually   planning   to   implement   a   rental   system   of   normal   bikes.   So   we   can   say   about   the   ELMOS   project  that  it  triggered  the  taste  of  e-­‐mobility,  and  especially  the  importance  of  cycling   in  small  and  medium  urban  areas.     So   Rostock   had   the   most   remarkable   resonance   after   the   implementation   of   ELMOS.   We   can   assume   obviously   that   the   spin-­‐off   effects   depend   on   the   size   of   the   city.   The  larger  the  city  is,  the  more  remarkable  the  effects  will  be.  But  we  can  also  explain   these  differences  of  impacts  regarding  the  national  contexts  of  pedelec  schemes.  Indeed   according  to  a  paper  from  Swedish  scholars69,  about  70%  of  the  pedelecs  in  the  EU  are   sold  in  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  (20%  of  pedelecs  among  all  new  cycles  sold  in  NL),   whereas   Swedish   citizens   have   still   a   limited   access   to   an   electrically   assisted   bicycle.   At   the   same   time,   the   electric   mobility   is   highly   politically   supported   in   Germany.   For   example,   the   efforts   of   Rostock   have   been   awarded   by   the   4th   place   within   the   E-­‐bike   award   in   Cologne,   2014.   In   Sweden,   still   apparently   lagging   behind   for   e-­‐bikes,   the   environmental-­‐friendly   policies   are   quite   important.   In   this   context,   the   implementation   of   the   ELMOS   project   in   Växjö   resulted   in   the   construction   of   a   garage   for   bikes   and   electric   bikes,   and   it   allowed   Växjö   to   be   quote   in   a   Swedish   web-­‐site   that   gather   the   knowledge   of   different   Swedish   cities   about   cycling   facilities   (   However,   the   impact   is   till   limited   as   the   pedelecs   sales   did   not   rocket   as   expected.   To   conclude,   we   may   say   that   ELMOS   triggered   in   all   cities   a   real   conscious   about   cycling-­‐friendly   policies   and   multimodal   systems  combining  e-­‐facilities  and  public  transport.  That’s  why  even  if  it  had  a  limited   impact   due   to   the   small-­‐scale   implementation   framework   and   limited   funds,   it   participated   to   this   harmonisation   trend.   Indeed   we   can   say   that   the   knowledge   sharing   benefited   also   to   small   urban   areas   like   Trabki-­‐Wielkie   and   Karlskrona   in   term   of   awareness.   2) Spreading   cycling-­‐friendly   practices:   the   ABC.MULTIMODAL   project   This  project  aimed  to  raise  the  significance  of  cycling  as  means  of  urban  transport   as   well,   but   focusing   only   on   cycling   policy,   and   combining   both   hard   measures   (installations   of   tangible   bike   materials)   and   soft   measures   (promotion   campaigns   for   citizens  and  politicians).  ABC.MULTIMODAL  was  set  up  from  June  2011  until  June  2014   and   financed   by   the   ERDF,   up   to   973   000€.   The   lead   partner   was   once   again   the   Municipality   of   Rostock,   gathering   the   cities   of   Kalmar   (SE)   and   Gdansk   (PL)   and   was   supported   by   two   cycling-­‐friendly   associated   organisations:   the   German   Cycling   Association  of  Rostock  (ADFC  Rostock)  and  the  Polish  Union  of  Active  Mobility  (PUMA),                                                                                                                           68

Interview  with  Justyna  Majewska  on  the  4th  February  2016,  see  Annexe  III    HISELIUS  Lena  Winslott,  SVENSSONA  Ase,  2014,  “Could  the  increased  use  of  pedelecs  in  Sweden  contribute   to  a  more  sustainable  transport  system”,  Lund  University,  for  The  9th  International  Conference   “ENVIRONMENTAL  ENGINEERING“,  Vilnius,  Lithuania  -­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐02-­‐04)   69


as project   partners70.   The   project   started   with   a   comparative   analysis   of   the   country-­‐ wise   best   practices   regarding   the   previous   cycling-­‐friendly   policies   already   implemented,  and  the  targets  in  each  city.  Consequently,  a  Manual  for  a  Cycling  Master   Plan   was   published   in   November   2013,   it   streamlines   at   the   end   five   guidelines   for   a   cycling  friendly  city:  how  to  ensure  a  systematic  approach  of  the  bike  in  urban  planning,   how  to  give  the  priority,  the  safety,  the  comfort  and  the  attractivity  to  bike  riders71.  We   can  notice  that  those  recommendations  follow  narrowly  the  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility   Plans   (SUMP),   proposed   by   Eltis,   the   European   observatory   for   urban   mobility;   it   allows   also  municipalities  and  cycling-­‐friendly  actors  to  exchange  information,  knowledge  and   experience  in  order  to  foster  the  sustainable  urban  mobility.  Indeed,  they  even  explain   directly,   on   page   24   their   inspiration   from   the   SUMP.   Then,   each   municipality   tested   the   implementation   measures   on   a   specific   population   target,   and   a   pre-­‐determined   goal.   Rostock  were  studying  the  expectations  of  the  cycling  commuters  on  a  corridor  between   the   city-­‐centre   and   suburbs,   Kalmar   had   to   focus   on   consumers   aiming   to   reach   shopping  areas,  and  Gdansk  orientated  the  test  toward  the  mass  media  (journalists)  in   their   everyday   commuting.   Those   three   different   trials   trigged   some   workshops   and   different   possible   planning   solutions   improved   and   discussed   through   a   participatory   process,  that  involved  end-­‐users  and  citizens  as  the  SUMP  advised  it  (see  SUMP  schema   in  annexe  II).  Naturally,  ABC.MULTIMODAL  entailed  the  installations  of  bikes  facilities  in   the   partner   cities,   as   hard   cycling-­‐friendly   measures.   The   project   financed   directly   some   bike   monitors   in   each   city.   The   three   first   ones   have   been   inaugurated   in   Rostock   in   September   2012,   and   then,   the   same   ones   have   been   installed   in   Kalmar   and   Gdansk.   This   machine   allows   counting   the   number   of   cyclists   riding   everyday   in   front   of   the   monitor,   and   those   figures   are   available   on   the   website,­‐,   from   the   French   company   Eco   Compteur   providing   sustainable   mobility   solutions   for   cities.   Hence   the   authorities   are   able   to   make   some   relevant   surveys  to  evaluate  their  cycling-­‐friendly  policies,  and  it  could  create  a  kind  of  challenge   toward  citizens  to  use  their  bike  more  often,  knowing  that  they  are  counted.  Moreover,   the   most   obvious   and   tangible   benefit   from   ABC.MULTIMODAL   remains   in   Gdansk,   where  a  major  street  has  been  completely  rebuilt  and  inaugurated  in  September  2013,   including  a  3.5  km  cycling  path,  instead  of  two  lanes  that  cars  and  bikes  had  to  share  in   the   past.   The   municipality   had   been   highly   inspired   by   the   bike   installations   that   they   have  appreciated  during  their  study  trip  in  Malmo  and  Copenhagen,  within  the  Interreg   project.  This  street  improves  the  comfort  and  the  security  of  the  cyclist,  as  the  car  speed   is   limited   up   to   30   km/h,   and   speed   bumps   prevent   cars   to   exceed   the   limit.   Also   this   cycling   friendly   street   counts   some   bike   boxes   at   each   cross-­‐road,   so   cyclist   can   turn   easily  and  safely  thanks  to  their  own  road  indications  and  lights  that  make  them  visible   for  car  drivers  and  allow  them  to  take  the  turn  earlier.                                                                                                                             70

INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  Official  Website  2007-­‐2013,  ABC  Project  -­‐  http://2007-­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐17)   71  FOKS  RENATE,  Nov  2013,  Manual  for  a  Cycling  Master  Plan,  Kalmar  Municipality,  28  p. %20plan_final.pdf  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐17)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

  Figure  8:  Picture  from  the  top,  the  cycling   friendly  street  of  Gdansk,  with  a  view  on   the  cross-­‐road  (Source:  Gdansk   Municipality,  2013)  

*  See  more  information  about   the   cycling-­‐friendly   street   on   pages  84  in  annexe  II.    

Furthermore, in  order  to  make  those  hard  measures  useful  and  to  encourage  the   citizen   to   use   their   bikes,   ABC.MULTIMODAL   entailed   some   soft   cycling   friendly   measures.  At  first,  some  of  those  measures  were  dedicated  to  citizens,  aiming  to  increase   the   share   of   the   cycling   in   transports,   by   promoting   cycling   among   commuters.   That’s   why  each  city  partner  organised  its  campaign.  In  Kalmar,  the  municipality  adopted  the   communication   strategy   “Thank  You  For  Cycling”,   entailing   some   events   for   promotion.   For  example,  in  2013  the  “Grand  Prix  Kalmar”,  the  “Student  event”,  or  the  “Cycle  Parking   event”   which   celebrates   the   renovation   of   the   bike   park,   were   organised   within   the   Interreg   project.   Some   events   are   also   dedicated   to   children   in   order   to   raise   awareness   among   youngest,   like   the   event   “Cycle   Safety   to   School”.   In   Rostock,   a   slogan   “Rostock   steigt  auf”  (meaning  “Rostock  gets  on  bikes”)  have  been  implemented  and  spread  on  a   lot   of   posters.   They   also   organised   some   events   like   the   “Free   Car  Days”.  In  Gdansk,  the  campaign  was  very  active.  Of  course   the   city   organised   may   events   like   “Bike   To   Work”   where   45   companies   participated   in   2014   and   80   companies   in   2015,   and   also   some   events   for   children   like   “Cycling   to   School”.   Those   measures   have   been   completed   by   the   involvement   of   the   polish   association   PUMA   that   organised   for   example   the   event   for   children   “My   first   Two   Wheels”   as   a   way   to   acknowledge   both   children   and   teachers   with   mobility   culture.   Moreover,  PUMA  and  Gdansk  municipality  implemented  some   Figure  9:  Road-­‐sign  produced   tangible   campaign   tools   like   some   new   cycling-­‐friendly   traffic   in  Gdansk  for  the  cycling-­‐ signs  to  make  car  drivers  care  about  cyclists  riding  on  the  same   friendly  campaign  in  Gdansk,   lane   (see   the   picture).   Those   measures   really   aim   to   raise   the   2013  (source:   awareness  of  cycling  among  citizens,  making  them  understand   ABC.MULTIMODAL  Website)   that  cycling  is  easy  and  possible  for  commuting.     But   other   documents   produced   by   the   city   partners   promote   cycling   among   politicians  and  urban  planners.  Indeed,  the  study  produced  by  Kalmar  about  cycling  to    


shopping areas   and   the   handbook   published   by   Rostock   that   summarise   all   the   implementation  process  of  the  ABC.MULTIMODAL  project,  are  efficient  tools  in  order  to   share  the  knowledge.   Today   the   ABC.MULTIMODAL   project   is   regularly   quoted   during   the   Interact   capacity   building   events   or   studies,   because   the   effects   are   particularly   remarkable,   especially  in  Gdansk.  Then  we  assume  that  Gdansk  benefited  from  a  lot  of  spin-­‐off  effects   remarkable   in   Poland,   while   other   city   partners   like   Kalmar   didn’t   know   the   same   success.  We  have  seen  in  the  first  part  that  Sweden  was  already  ahead  of  Poland  in  term   of   sustainable   mobility.   That’s   why   we   can   aim   that   such   projects   about   sustainable   transports   had   not   very   remarkable   impacts   on   the   national   level.   We   could   even   assume  that  those  projects  (ELMOS  and  ABC.MULTIMODAL)  helped  Växjö  and  Kalmar  to   come   up   to   the   level   of   the   numerous   cycling-­‐friendly   cities   in   Sweden.   In   Germany,   Rostock   benefited   from   both   of   the   projects   on   the   same   period   and   that   brought   two   remarkable   effects:   the   implementation   book   (ABC)   and   the   pedelecs   (ELMOS).   However,   it   raised   a   good   awareness   of   biking   in   the   city.   Indeed,   Steffen   Nozon,   the   mobility  coordinator  in  Rostock  explained  that  after  the  projects,  the  municipality  added   a  cycling  monitor,  other  furniture  for  cyclists  (bike  boxes  and  air  pumps),  and  continued   the   campaign   with   a   similar   slogan   “Rostocker   Aufsteiger”   in   2015.   And   all   those   improvements  had  a  real  impact  on  the  awareness  of  Rostock  as  a  cycling-­‐friendly  city,   in   Germany   and   in   the   Mecklenburg-­‐Western   Pomerania   region.   Now   Rostock   organises   some   events   and   participate   to   the   share   of   knowledge   in   Germany.   For   instance,   in   November   2015,   the   Hanseatic   City   hosted   the   “Fahrradkommunalkonferenz”   (the   biggest   national   conference   for   cycling   experts   from   German   municipalities,   with   200   participants),  because  of  the  new  image  gained  toward  other  German  cities.  The  city  has   been   also   awarded   by   the   third   prize   of   the   Deutsche   Fahrradpreis   in   2016,   regarding   their  “comprehensive  service  approach”.  So  we  can  see  that  Rostock  gained  visibility  and   relevance  on  term  of  cycling  policy  in  Germany,  while  the  country  was  already  on  a  good   cycling-­‐level.    Finally,  the  most  remarkable  effect  is  in  Gdansk  where  has  been  built  the   first   cycling-­‐friendly   street   in   Poland,   on   Wita   Stwosza   and   Wojska   Polskiego   streets.   Indeed,   even   if   Poland   was   counting   already   some   cycling   paths   in   the   country,   there   were  no  such  system  with  bike  boxes  and  bike  lights.  And  even  further,  the  municipality   has  kept  on  creating  new  bike  paths72.  The  success  of  the  ABC.MULTIMODAL  in  Poland   lies   in   the   new   polish   legal   regulations   about   street   planning   by   the   Ministry   of   Infrastructure   and   Development   that   adopted   the   Cycling   Friendly   Street   of   Gdansk   as   a   model   and   standard   solutions   for   Polish   cities.   Indeed,   according   to   Krzysztof   Perycz-­‐ Szczepanski,  from  the  department  of  Municipal  services:  “the  innovative  solutions  applied   in  the  “First  cycling  friendly  street  in  Poland”  project  within  the  ABC.MULTIMODAL  project   were   adopted   to   Polish   legal   regulations   by   the   Ministry   of   Infrastructure   and                                                                                                                           72

PERYCZ-­‐SZCZEPANSKI  Krzysztof,  2014,  Conference  Gdansk  ABC.MULTIMODAL  -­‐­‐ 140522-­‐BicycleCapitalGdansk-­‐KrzysztofPeryczSzczepanski.pdf  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐17)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Development as   a   standard   solutions   for   Polish   cities”  73.   So   now,   every   Polish   city   that   wants  to  build  a  cycling-­‐friendly  street  strictly  speaking  has  to  respect  the  share  of  space,   the   bike   box   system   and   lights   for   bikes.   This   fact   confirms   the   gratifying   image   of   Gdansk  as  the  “bicycle  capital”  in  Poland.  Krzysztof  Perycz-­‐Szczepanski  explains  as  well   that   Gdansk   has   got   this   image   as   it   won   the   European   Cycling   Challenge   in   2015.   Moreover   since   2010,   Gdansk   has   organised   the   Active   Mobility   Congress   (the   biggest   event  in  Central  Europe  promoting  active  mobility)  in  order  to  disseminate  knowledge   and  present  best  practice  examples  of  urban  cycling  development.       In   Poland   Gdansk   is   a   leader,   while   on   the   South   Baltic   regional   scale   the   city   remains   a   climber.   That’s   why   we   may   conclude   that   the   ABC.MULTIMODAL   project   has   been   a   harmonisation   tool   of   cycling-­‐friendly   policies.   Indeed   the   knowledge   sharing   helped   cities   that   were   lagging   behind   to   get   some   tools   and   infrastructure   to   trigger   awareness.   This   is   only   a   beginning,   but   policies   implementation   on   the   field   remains   always   very   long.   But   we   can   argue   that   the   SB   programme   has   been   successful   in   promoting  cycling  in  Rostock  and  even  in  Poland,  as  Gdansk  has  now  an  impact  in  the   country.   3) Cross-­‐border  cooperation  to  limit  the  sulphur  pollution  in  the   SBR:  the  MarTech  LNG  project   The  SB  programme  made  the  entrepreneurial  development  as  its  first  objective,   in  the  first  priority  axis  of  economic  competitiveness.  But  the  project  that  we  are  going   to  present  is  also  answering  to  accessibility  and  sustainable  transport  issues.  In  fact  the   limit   of   sulphur   pollution   in   the   Baltic   Sea   has   been   reduced   from   1.00%   to   0.10%   by   European  authorities.  This  paradigm  shift  could  affect  the  general  bunker  fuel  practice   of   the   Baltic   shipping   industry.   That’s   why   the   Interreg   programme   supports   new   solutions   in   order   to   respect   this   environmental   limit   and   to   protect   the   shipping   industry   at   the   same   time.   In   this   context,   despite   its   non-­‐renewable   character,   the   Liquefied   Natural   Gas   (LNG)   appears   as   an   alternative   of   the   classic   vessel   fuel   that   is   much  more  polluting.  Indeed,  natural  gas  is  the  cleanest  form  of  fossil  fuels  available  and   could  be  a  relevant  solution  to  meet  the  requirements  in  the  North  European  Emission   Control  Area,  as  it  is  explained  in  the  brochure  “Smart  Transport  Development  in  South   Baltic”74.  It  was  also  linked  to  the  need  of  security  of  the  energy  markets,  very  important   in  this  region  that  suffered  from  the  gas  crisis  in  2009  when  Russia  decided  to  cut  the   gas  supply  to  Europe.  The  LNG  market  was  hence  a  possibility  to  get  more  independence   from  the  Russian  supply.   To  give  a  try  to  LNG  exploitation,  the  SB  programme  supported  a  project  related   to   business   development   able   to   streamline   the   LNG   supply   chain   in   the   SBR,   in   the   theme   of   economic   competitiveness   as   we   explained.   Therefore   the   MarTech   LNG   project  aimed  to  develop  core  competences  in  building  and  operation  of  LNG  terminals                                                                                                                           73

Interview  with  Krzysztof  Perycz-­‐Szczepanski,  see  Annexe  III    IOTZOV  VASSILEN,  CHESNEL  NICOLAS,  KOHLISCH  THORSTEN,  2014,  Smart  Transport  Development  in  South   Baltic,  JTS  of  the  SB  programme  2007-­‐2013,  Gdansk,  27p.,  p.  8   74


and to   form   cross-­‐border   supply   chain,   in   other   words,   MarTech   LNG   had   to   create   a   business  cooperation  platform.  The  project  has  been  approved  after  the  seventh  call  and   started   in   January   2012   and   lasted   3   years   with   an   ERDF   contribution   of   1  112   000€.   The   lead   partner   was   the   Klaipeda   Science   and   Technology   Park   (LT)   and   the   cross-­‐ border  cooperation  involved  as  well  the  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin  (MUS)  (PL),  the   Blekinge   Institute   of   Technology   (SE),   the   Wismar   University   of   Applied   Science   (DE),   other   research   centres   from   Germany   and   Lithuania,   and   the   Klaipeda   State   Seaport   Authority.   Under   the   coordination   of   Andrius   Sutnikas,   Communication   manager   at   Klaipeda   Science   and   Technology   Park,   the   project   started   with   a   mapping   of   LNG   competences   in   the   region   and   a   mapping   of   potential   LNG   businesses.   Then   the   formation   of   expert   groups   triggered   the   establishment   of   a   website   (,   as   a   tool   to   foster   contact   between   LNG   experts,   training   institutions   and   companies,   in   total   more   than   300   members 75 .   The   goal   of   this   cooperation   platform   was   to   create   an   LNG   cluster,   new   businesses   and   improve   the   knowledge   in   the   BSR,   which   was   lacking   in   the   SBR   and   was   stopping   investments   in   the   region.   Martech   LNG   also   helped   small   actors   by   providing   directly   knowhow   and   contacts.   For   example,   they   provided   tender   procedures   for   small   structures,   they   organised  study  visits  and  presentations  to  Norway,  or  LNG  events,  such  as  the  LNG  17   Houston.   So  what  have  been  the  results  of  this  cross-­‐border  cooperation?  The  main  spin-­‐ off   effects   lie   in   the   partnerships   that   have   been   created   so   far.   First,   about   the   cooperation   between   universities   and   professionals:   the   MUS   trained   during   the   project   50   professionals   and   more   than   200   students   about   LNG   technologies,   using   a   special   training   material   acquired   through   MarTech   LNG   according   to   Stefan   Jankowski,   the   director  of  the  programme  in  the  MUS76.  Also,  the  MUS  and  other  universities  involved   in  MarTech  LNG  are  even  planning  to  continue  their  collaboration  in  2016,  like  Klaipeda,   Wismar  University,  or  the  Blekinge  Institute  of  Technology.  Also  the  Klaipeda  University   is  developing  currently  a  study  program  about  LNG  engineering  within  a  Lithuanian  LNG   cluster77.     Secondly,   several   partnerships   have   been   created   between   companies   and   LNG   terminals  as  Andrius  Sutnikas  explained.  During  MarTech  LNG,  the  small  Samsø  Island,   in  the  middle  of  the  Danish  territory  let  know  that  they  were  looking  for  a  LNG  fuelled   ferry  to  ensure  the  connexion  between  the  island  and  the  rest  of  the  country.  Hence  they   had   an   agreement   with   the   OSK-­‐Ship   Tech   Company   (DK)   that   have   a   particular   knowledge  about  LNG  technology.  For  information,  this  company  was  directly  involved   in   MarTech   LNG,   “not  only  as  a  part  of  the  value  chain  or  projects  business  network,  but   they  were  also  cooperating  in  organising  the  study  visit  to  Norway  on  the    LNG  powered   ferry   and   in   implementing   tender   procedures   for   LNG   supply   for   Samsø   project”.   So   the   LNG   fuelled   ship   construction   implied   several   shipbuilding   companies   from   the   entire                                                                                                                           75

Idem    Interview  by  email  with  Stefan  Jankowski  on  the  2016-­‐02-­‐11,  see  Annexe  III   77  Interview  by  email  with  Andrius  Sutnikas  on  the  2016-­‐02-­‐10,  see  Annexe  III   76


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Baltic region:   STX   Finland   and   Remontowa   (PL)   based   in   Gdansk.   Finally   the   ferry   has   been  built  in  the  Remontowa  shipyard  in  Gdansk,  benefiting  from  the  knowhow  of  all  the   partners,  and  it  was  the  first  LNG-­‐fuelled  ferry  for  domestic  Danish  trade,  inaugurated  in   March   201578.   More   recently   Samso   also   acquired   one   small   LNG   bunker   station   to   secure   its   own   LNG   supply.   Moreover   SC   Klaipedos   Nafta,   the   company   operating   Klaipeda  oil  terminal,  wanted  to  buy  on  LNG  bunker  supply  vessel,  a  ship  able  to  store   LNG  and  fuel  other  vessels  at  sea,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  LNG  supply  chain  in  the  SBR   and  ensure  the  ship  traffic.  That’s  why  within  MarTech  LNG,  Klaipedos  Nafta  signed  an   agreement   in   November   2015   with   Bomin   Linde   based   in   Hamburg   (DE),   in   order   to   create   a   14   million   $   Joint   Venture:   Blue   LNG79.   Hence,   Blue   LNG   chartered   an   LNG   bunkering  vessel  that  is  supposed  to  provide  LNG  in  many  terminals  of  the  region,  and   that  is  also  able  to  refill  ships  at  sea.  However,  the  rental  of  the  bunker  vessel  substitutes   the   previous   plan,   that   was   actually   the   complete   acquisition   of   a   bunker   vessel;   this   operation  turned  out  to  be  less  attractive  for  Blue  LNG  Joint  venture.  This  operation  is   actually   directly   linked   to   MarTech   LNG   chain   value   as   remind   us   Andrius   Sutnikas:   “We   have   been   investigating   the   missing   links   and   had   pointed   the   size   and   the   type   of   the   bunkering   ship”.  Furthermore,  the  Polish  company  Polskie  LNG  S.A.  is  planning  to  build   an   LNG   terminal   in   Świnoujście   after   the   Polish   government   recognised   in   2008   that   such   an   investment   could   allow   the   country   to   diversify   the   sources   and   roads   of   supply   of  natural  gas,  in  order  to  ensure  the  energy  security  of  Poland80.  But  the  interesting  fact,   as   it   was   specified   by   Andrius   Sutnikas   once   again   is   that   MarTech   LNG   “have   been   cooperating  with  Polskie  LNG  presenting  terminal  case  in  many  projects  events”   and   the   cluster   “implemented   the   feasibility   study   to   evaluate   option   of   the   LNG   ferry   route   between   Klaipeda   and   Świnoujście”.   And   according   to   our   knowledge   agent,   “they   are   planning   to   enable   bunkering   and   reloading   services   in   the   future   development   stages”.   And   at   last   but   not   least,   MarTech   LNG   developed   technical   concepts   that   could   be   exploited  by  partner  companies,  such  as  dredging  companies  interested  in  the  concept   of   dredger   fuelled   with   LNG   for   example.   In   any   case,   the   implementation   of   the   LNG   business  in  Lithuania  and  South-­‐East  Baltic  region  is  very  recent.  That’s  why  if  some  of   the   projects   seems   to   be   well   settled,   others   are   still   evolving,   while   future   partnerships   may  be  triggered  in  later  development  stages.    Regarding   all   those   partnerships   implied   by   the   Martech   LNG   project,   we   can   argue   that   the   SB   programme   succeed   in   creating   an   LNG   cluster,   that   still   have   some   obvious   spin-­‐off   effects,   in   terms   of   business   but   also   in   term   of   impact   on   the   transport   energy  means.  Indeed,  LNG  fuelling  seems  to  be  a  good  alternative,  especially  for  ships                                                                                                                           78

EMABSSY  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  POLAND  IN  COPENHAGUEN,  21  June  2015,  “Polish-­‐built  LNG  fuelled  ferry   helps  Samsø  fulfil  environmental  ambitions”  -­‐ helps_sams__fulfil_environmental_ambitions  (accessed  on  the  2016-­‐03-­‐17)   79 SHIP&BUNKER,  26  Nov  2015,  “Bomin  Blue  LNG  Joint  Venture  to  Serve  Terminals  in  the  Baltic  and  North  Sea”  -­‐­‐bomin-­‐blue-­‐lng-­‐joint-­‐venture-­‐to-­‐serve-­‐terminals-­‐in-­‐the-­‐baltic-­‐ and-­‐north-­‐sea  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐17)   80  POLSKIE  LNG,  „LNG  Terminal  in  Poland”­‐lng-­‐w-­‐polsce/  (accessed  2016-­‐ 03-­‐17)  


or public  transports  like  the  buses  in  Warsaw  for  example81.  So  we  could  even  go  further   saying   that   the   MarTech   LNG   project   promoted   the   use   and   exploitation   of   LNG   by   supporting   countries   with   potentials   but   not   enough   knowledge   and   technologies   to   attract   investors   across   the   SBR,   in   other   words,   it   rebalanced   the   LNG   business   potentials  and  practices  between  the  countries.  Of  course,  we  assume  that  most  of  those   economic  partnerships  would  not  have  exist  or,  much  later  if  Interreg  had  not  supported   the  project  of  an  LNG  cooperation  platform.  Finally,  the  Martech  LNG  project  succeeded   in   the   establishment   of   a   value-­‐chain   that   is   still   growing   nowadays,   by   filling   the   missing  links  between  actors,  knowledge  holders  and  investors.       By  the  way,  this  project  is  considered  by  the  office  as  one  of  the  best  example  of   the  former  programme  because  of  the  investments  that  it  attracted;  presented  in  many   conferences   and   platforms.   Vassilen   Iotzov,   the   Communication   and   Capitalisation   Officer   of   the   JTS   said   himself   that   Martech   LNG   can   be   considered   as   the   “spark   that   triggered   the   fire”   because   few   investments   and   knowledge   sharing   sessions   with   several  different  small  projects  finally  created  a  very  valuable  cluster  and  business  chain   in  the  region.  Moreover,  MarTech  LNg  is  considered  today  as  a  “flagship”  project  by  the   EUSBSR   because   it   has   very   remarkable   effects   and   it   answers   directly   to   several   objectives   of   the   EU   Strategy:   clean   and   safe   shipping,   in   the   umbrella   “Save   the   Sea”.   To   conclude,  we  can  argue  that  this  project  participated  to  the  harmonisation  of  the  region   by   creating   a   business   value-­‐chain   in   a   less-­‐developed   economic   area   of   the   SBR,   and   moreover,  it  promoted  the  use  of  cleaner  energies  in  Lithuania  while  they  were  lagging   behind  in  terms  of  clean  and  modern  port  infrastructure.   Finally,  this  section  showed  us  how  the  South  Baltic  programme  can  influence  the   harmonisation  trend  in  the  SBR  through  small-­‐scale  projects  in  the  field  of  sustainable   and  green  transports,  because  it  triggered  the  awareness  of  cycling  in  cities  and  towns   that  were  lagging  behind  (Poland  especially),  and  it  fostered  the  installation  of  modern   and  greener  infrastructures  for  ship  fuelling,  ports  and  LNG  terminals.     We  have  to  admit  that  it  remains  hard  to  measure  the  effects  of  the  programme   on   a   global   scale,   because   the   small-­‐scale   implementation   cannot   provide   us   global   statistics.  So  we  may  not  have  general  statements  about  the  effects  of  the  SB  programme.   However,  we  saw  in  this  large  second  part  that  qualitative  investigations  about  spin-­‐off   effects   prove   that   the   programme   participated   to   the   trend   of   harmonisation   and   changed   things   in   the   field   of   services   for   people,   in   the   way   that   it   is   integrated   in   a   large   European   and   Baltic   strategies,   as   we   saw   through   the   examples   of   INTERFACE   and  SBGA  projects.  Moreover,  we  have  remarkable  projects  that  had  even  ripple  effects   of   harmonisation   on   larger   scales   like   ABC.MULTIMODAL   that   had   an   effect   in   Poland,   and  MarTech  LNG  that  does  not  stop  to  grow  and  is  designated  as  a  flagship  project  by   the  EUSBR.  So  based  on  this  assessment  for  the  previous  funding  period,  the  programme   is  now  preparing  the  second  funding  period  of  its  history,  as  the  new  Interreg  V-­‐A.                                                                                                                             81

MARTECH  LNG,  Official  Website  -­‐­‐germania-­‐gmbh-­‐and-­‐solbus-­‐ bring-­‐natural-­‐gas-­‐buses-­‐to-­‐the-­‐streets-­‐of-­‐warsaw-­‐16035.html  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐17)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  



After  the  study  of  the  former  Interreg  IV,  this  third  part  is  dedicated  to  explain  the   new   stakes   of   the   Interreg   V   South   Baltic   programme   and   the   remaining   challenges   in   the  SBR  for  transport  policies.  That’s  why   we  will  see  in  a  first  section  to  what  extend   the   new   SB   programme   evolved   despite   the   remaining   divergences   between   the   countries.   The   second   section   will   highlight   the   current   challenges   of   the   SB   programme   in  the  reality  of  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  cooperation  in  transport.    

A. A streamlined  South  Baltic  Programme  responding  to   common  issues  for  the  2014-­‐2020  period     In  order  to  fully  answer  to  the  question  of  the  thesis,  how  does  the  SB  programme   participate  to  the  harmonisation  trend  of  transport  means  through  the  implementation   of   a   cross-­‐border   cooperation   in   accessibility   and   sustainable   mobility   small-­‐scale   projects,   it   would   be   interesting   to   understand   how   the   programme   is   improving   its   internal   functioning.   Thus   we   will   see   in   this   section   how   has   been   streamlined   the   elaboration   process   of   the   programme   despite   the   remaining   divergences   between   the   countries,   and   then   we   will   see   how   has   been   improved   the   internal   functioning.   In   a   third   component   hoe   these   improvements   influenced   the   new   approach   of   the   SB   programme  toward  the  transport  policy  in  particular.   1) The  elaboration  process  of  the  South  Baltic  Programme  as  a   mirror  of  divergences  and  common  issues       The   new   Programme   Manual   of   the   South   Baltic   Interreg   V   for   2014-­‐2020   was   approved   on   the   23   September   2015   by   Corina   Cretu,   the   European   Commissioner   for   Regional   Policy,   on   behalf   of   the   European   Commission.   But   how   has   been   elaborated   this   new   programme?   By   answering   to   this   question,   we   will   also   see   that   the   elaboration   process   might   enlighten   the   common   challenges   that   regions   agreed   to   tackle  together,  but  also  the  divergent  interests  of  the  countries  during  the  negotiations.     At   first,   it   could   be   interesting   to   know   why   and   how   these   regions   decided   to   cooperate   in   2007   to   highlight   the   common   issues   comprised   in   the   SBR.   We   saw   before   that  the  Interreg  IV-­‐A  2007-­‐2013  had  been  highly  supported  by  the  Baltic  Euroregion.  At   the  beginning,  the  main  goal  was  to  tackle  the  common  issue  of  pollution  in  the  SBR,  a   wish   especially   expressed   by   Poland   and   Sweden.   Indeed   both   were   concerned   by   the   environmental  and  maritime  issues,  but  the  cooperation  seemed  appropriated  in  order   to   rebalance   territorial   development   between   the   two   countries.   But   the   ERDF   regulation,   regarding   European   Commission   regulation   from   2006   and   2007,   borders   cannot  be  separated  by  a  maritime  distance  superior  than  150  km,  a  too  short  distance   for   an   eventual   Swedish-­‐Polish   cross-­‐border   cooperation.   That’s   why   they   invited   Denmark   because   the   island   of   Bornholm   (DK),   situated   between   Poland   and   Sweden    


was a  strategic  territory  in  order  to  enable  the  cooperation  in  the  SBR.  Indeed,  Bornholm   is  situated  to  a  distance  lower  than  150  km  from  both  Polish  and  Swedish  coasts.  Then,   Germany   considered   that   such   maritime   and   territorial   cooperation   could   be   a   real   opportunity   for   the   enclosed   North-­‐Eastern   regions   of   Mecklenburg-­‐Vorpommern.   In   this   context,   Lithuania   appeared   as   a   logic   partner   for   a   real   South-­‐Baltic   cooperation.   Then  the  programme  established  in  2007  had  been  the  result  of  important  negotiations   between   representatives   of   the   countries,   as   they   have   very   different   interests.   Hence   we   might   assume   that   elaboration   process   of   the   new   Interreg   programme   in   2014   would  comprise  less  disagreement.  However  this  was  not  the  case.     At  the  very  beginning,  before  the  end  of  the  former  programming  period,  the  Joint   Programming   Committee   had   to   elaborate   a   draft   of   Operation   programme   before   the   submission   to   the   European   Commission.   So   in   this   aim,   representatives   from   Poland,   Sweden,   Germany,   Denmark   and   Lithuania   as   well   as   stakeholders   from   Baltic   Euroregion,   and   Pomerania   Euroregion   had   to   debate   about   the   common   issues   which   would  be  the  base  of  the  cross-­‐border  cooperation.  However,  despite  the  experience  of   the  former  programme,  several  points  of  contention  were  remaining.     As  we  saw  in  the  first  part  (I-­‐B-­‐3)  the  topics  proposed  by  the  ERDF  were  manifold   and  thus  the  objectives  remained  blurred  meanwhile  the  programmes  had  to  choose  the   topics  that  they  wanted  to  support  in  2007.  But  the  new  ERDF  strategy  for  2014-­‐2020,   determined  by  the  EU  Regulation  No  1301/2013,  changed  into  a  streamlined  choice  of   eleven  clear  Thematic  Objectives  (TO)82,  and  each  TO  is  divided  in  several  goals  called   Investment  Priorities  (IP),  as  described  in  the  Article  5.  Nowadays,  each  programme  has   to   choose   4   TOs   including   the   obligatory   TO   11   dealing   with   the   institutional   capacity   building   of   the   programme.   However,   the   Commission   authorised   the   selection   of   5   TOs   whose   the   4   main   ones   should   be   financed   up   to   80%   of   the   programme   budget   and   maximum   20%   for   the   TO   11.   This   limit   fixed   by   the   EU   obliged   the   programmes   to   settle  clearer  objectives.  However,  this  system  entails  harder  negotiations  as  it  limits  the   number   of   subjects;   indeed   it   might   be   more   difficult   to   settle   an   agreement   on   4   or   5   TOs   than   on   many   different   thematic   because   then   only   the   very   common   issues   that   all   parts   approve   should   be   selected.   In   order   to   inform   target   groups   and   establish   objectives  and  expectations  from  the  programme  in  every  country,  some  consultations   and   meetings   have   been   organised,   gathering   people   from   the   delegation,   but   also   institutions,   economic   and   social   partners,   culture   and   youth   institutions,   rural   actors   and   NGOs.   In   this   context,   each   delegation   corresponding   to   the   5   countries   and   the   Euroregions  had  to  rank  each  TO  on  a  scale  from  1  to  5  according  to  their  own  priorities.   The  results  of  the  survey  highlighted  some  disparities  in  the  willing  of  the  countries.  For   example,   as   Robert   Mazurkiewicz   said   during   the   interview,   Denmark   and   Sweden   were   really  pushing  for  the  labour  market  and  mobility  because  they  have  insufficient  number   of   employees   to   some   sectors,   but   Poland   and   Lithuania   disagreed   because   they   are   suffering   for   a   brain-­‐drain,   even   though   it   was   one   of   the   most   cross-­‐border   elements   in                                                                                                                           82

Refer  to  „Regulations”  in  the  Annexes  III  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

the programme.   So   finally,   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation   planned   to   be   more   relevant   and  with  clear  objectives,  has  been  possible  only  after  compromises  from  each  side.  At   the  end,  the  programme  selected  7  IP  that  became  their  Specific  Objectives  (SO),  divided   between  4  TO  that  became  their  Priority  Axis  (PA).     Thus   it   was   quite   complex   for   the   Joint   programming   Committee   to   settle   an   agreement  and  it  took  almost  one  year  to  establish  common  objectives.  But  finally,  this   programming   committee   composed   of   delegations   from   the   national   ministries   of   domestic   planning,   representatives   from   diverse   business   authorities,   cross-­‐border   associations,   and   representatives   from   Pan-­‐Baltic   organisations   succeeded   in   the   elaboration   on   one   draft,   with   the   assistance   of   the   JTS.   This   final   draft   has   been   approved   at   their   8th   meeting   on   14-­‐15   October   2014   in   Gdansk.   Then   it   has   been   submitted   to   the   approval   of   the   DG   Regio   of   the   EU   Commission.   So   finally,   the   streamlining   of   the   programme   elaboration   based   on   the   selection   of   4   or   5   TOs,   as   asked   by   ERDF,   entailed   harder   negotiations   for   the   selection   of   the   common   issues   that   the  programme  should  finance.  But  the  programme  elaboration  is  not  the  only  point  to   be  streamlined.  Indeed  once  the  programme  is  approved  and  launched,  a  new  strategy   has  to  be  elaborated  for  the  decision  making  process  in  the  cross-­‐border  cooperation.   2) The  complex  but  streamlined  organisation  of  the  decision-­‐ making  process     The   selection   of   projects   that   shall   be   reimbursed   by   ERDF   funds   and   the   day-­‐to-­‐ day  management  of  the  programme  for  the  period  2014-­‐2020  have  to  follow  a  precise   procedure  that  is  designed  to  preserve  the  respect  of  the  common  interest.  We  will  see   to   what   extend   the   streamlining   of   this   process   could   improve   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation.     As  an  Interreg  programme,  the  functioning  of  the  SBP  is  similar  to  the  other  ones,   apart   that   they   have   the   highest   number   of   cross-­‐border   regions   from   participating   countries.   It   is   dedicated   to   the   funding   of   projects.   These   projects   are   prepared   and   implemented   by   the   Lead   Beneficiary   (LB)   that   has   to   gather   partners   from   other   cross-­‐ border  regions.  But  how  is  managed  the  choice  of  the  projects  that  will  be  funded  and   who  decide  about  the  path  of  the  programme  implementation  process?  Since  2014,  we   can   identify   three   main   stakeholders   in   the   general   decision   making   process:   the   Managing  Authority  (MA),  the  Monitoring  Committee  (MC)  and  the  Joint  Secretariat  (JS).       The   Managing   Authority   is   the   legally   responsible   authority   for   the   entire   programme.  Actually  it  was  decided  in  2007  that  the  MA  would  be  managed  and  host  by   the  Polish  Ministry  of  Economic  Development  in  Warsaw  (transformed  into  the  Ministry   of   Economic   Development   in   2015),   meaning   that   all   the   people   working   in   the   Managing  Authority  is  from  the  Polish  Ministry.  However,  it  may  not  have  any  important   consequences  on  the  decision  making  process.  Indeed,  this  legal  responsibility  consists   in  checking  payments,  legal  aspects  according  to  the  internal  and  EU  regulation,  assuring  


implementation or   conflicts   related   to   subsidy   contracts,   etc 83 ...   The   MA   is   also   responsible  for  submitting  the  draft  of  the  programme  to  the  EU  Commission.  Thus  their   work   is   limited   to   the   legal   aspect   of   the   programme   and   shall   not   interfere   with   the   tasks  of  the  Monitoring  Committee.     So   the   MC,   very   similar   from   the   Joint   Programming   Authority,   is   composed   of   delegations  from  every  participating  country  and  from  Euroregions.  We  can  divide  the   tasks  of  the  MC  in  two  main  parts:  the  decision  making  about  organisation  and  funding   of  the  programme,  and  the  decision  making  about  selection  of  projects.  So  their  first  task   corresponds   to   establish   the   precise   eligibility   criteria   of   the   projects   and   target   groups,   the  partition  of  funds  between  the  Specific  Objectives,  the  re-­‐adaptation  and  relocation   of  funds  among  Priority  Axis  calls  after  calls...  Then  the  second  main  kind  of  task  is  the   selection   of   projects   after   each   call.   So   they   are   the   true   decision   making   body   of   the   programme.  Hence  they  need  an  overall  view  on  all  stakes  and  issues  of  the  programme,   and   a   very   precise   knowledge   about   legal,   technical,   social,   economic   aspects   of   the   programme.   Indeed,   as   it   is   written   in   the   Programme   Manual,   they   have   to   be   informed   by  the  MA  and  the  JS,  in  order  to  be  able  to  make  the  most  enlightened  decisions.       Then   the   role   of   the   JS,   based   in   Gdansk,   the   biggest   urban   centre   of   the   programme   area,   appears   as   the   essential   third   pillar   of   the   programme   organisation.   Indeed,  meanwhile  the  MC  approves  decisions  and  chooses  projects,  we  can  notice  than   many   of   their   choices   are   the   approval   of   the   advices   made   by   the   JS.   The   JS   is   the   technical  backbone  of  the  programme  because  they  have  to  assist  both  MC  and  MA.  They   have  both  management  and  communication  tasks.  The  management  of  the  programme   for   the   JS   is   actually   concerning   “the   application   for   all   projects,   including   the   organisation   of   calls   for   proposals   (including   the   drafting   of   terms   of   Reference   and   the   proparation  of  applicant  packs),  giving  information  and  advice  to  applicants  as  well  as  the   assessment   of   submitted   applications”84 .   So   before   the   calls,   they   are   preparing   the   Programme   Manual   in   accordance   to   the   MC   wishes,   they   launch   the   calls   for   tenders,   while   the   calls   are   opened,   they   inform   applicants   about   legal   procedure,   expectations   from  the  programme,  objectives,  targets  and  so  on,  and  later  they  prepare  the  Subsidy   Contracts   that   would   officialise   the   set   up   of   the   funding   process   between   the   SB   programme   and   the   beneficiaries.   After   the   calls,   when   the   projects   start,   they   assist   the   beneficiaries   in   the   implementation   of   the   projects.   In   parallel,   they   realise   the   assessments   of   the   projects   before   the   appliance   to   the   MC:   they   give   their   opinion   on   every  applying  projects,  about  the  conformity  of  the  projects  with  the  ERDF  regulation,   and  the  internal  regulation  of  the  programme.  They  recommend  projects  to  be  approved   by  the  MC  but  they  do  not  have  the  final  word.  Moreover,  they  prepare  draft  decisions   for  the  MC  about  relocation  of  funds,  or  evaluation  plans.  The  second  kind  of  tasks  of  the   JS  consists  in  the  communication  and  dissemination  of  knowledge  between  the  parties   of  the  programme.  Thus  they  have  to  organise  the  meetings  with  the  MC,  but  they  also                                                                                                                           83

INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  Programme  Manual  2014-­‐2020,  Detailed  aspects  of  the  MA  responsibilities  in   p.100-­‐101  of  the  SB  programme.   84  Idem,  p.102-­‐103  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

have to  set  up  meetings  and  info  days  for  local  stakeholders  and  potential  beneficiaries   to  help  them  to  find  potential  partners  for  example.  In  general,  the  JS  has  to  disseminate   all  kind  of  knowledge  about  the  programme  to  all  parties  and  participants.  That’s  why   there   is   also   an   annual   conference   dedicated   to   the   South   Baltic   programme   for   institutions   and   stakeholders   involved   in   the   implementation   of   the   programme.   But   they   also   have   to   advertise   to   the   general   public   about   the   activities   and   the   opportunities   of   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation.   That’s   why   they   have   also   the   responsibility  of  the  website  (that  serves  also  to  manage  the  applications,  the  calls,  and   the   overall   communication   of   the   programme)   and   the   uploading   of   information,   as   well   as  the  publication  of  brochures,  publication,  videos,  etc...  Because  one  important  stake  of   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation   initiative   is   to   communicate   about   the   existence   itself   of   such  programme  to  attract  potential  beneficiaries  and  to  foster  the  interest  of  national   and   local   politicians   for   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation   aspect.   Moreover,   there   is   an   important   task   of   communication,   dissemination   and   capitalisation   after   implementation   of   projects.   The   JS   has   to   gather   all   information   about   the   ripple   and   spin-­‐off  effects  of  the  projects  to  assess  the  efficiency  of  the  programme  and  share  these   results   with   the   EU   stakeholders.   This   should   be   facilitated   by   the   cooperation   of   the   Lead  Beneficiaries  with  the  JS,  however  this  duty  was  lacking  on  the  previous  Interreg   period;   that’s   why   since   2014   the   beneficiaries   of   the   programme   may   be   pushed   to   share  their  results  after  implementation  of  the  project.  In  the  task  of  communication  and   assistance  to  the  beneficiaries  during  the  implementation,  the  JS  is  helped  by  the  Contact   Points.  Eleven  offices  are  distributed  in  the  main  urban  centres  of  the  programme  area.   Their  mission  is  to  manage  and  coordinate  the  implementation  process  of  the  projects   on  the  field,  as  they  have  this  particular  knowledge  about  the  specific  stakes  peculiar  to   their   region.   Hence   they   participate   to   the   knowledge   of   the   MC   necessary   when   the   delegation  has  to  make  a  decision.  But  at  the  same  time,  the  Contact  points  have  also  this   communication   task   and   they   often   assist   the   JS   for   the   organisation   of   events,   meetings   and  info  days.     Finally,   on   the   period   2014-­‐2020,   the   South   Baltic   programme   is   organised   under   the   following  system:                



Takes decisions,  decides  the   MANAGING  AUTHORITY   budget,  selects  the  projects     Ministry  in  Warsaw                                                                                                      Assistance  to  the  MC                                          Help  for  decision-­‐making  process     JOINT  SECRETARIAT     Based  in  Gdansk     11  Contact  Points                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Co-­‐financing  contract                                                                Consultations,                        Promotion  and  information           Lead  Beneficiary               Agreement  between  the  project  partners     Partner  1   Partner  2   Partner  N+1     Elsa  Bergery,  2016  -­‐  inspired  by  the  decision-­‐schema  procedure  of  the  Operational  programme  2007      

Figure 10:  Decision-­‐Schema  procedure  of  the  South  Baltic  Interreg  cross-­‐border  cooperation  programme  2014-­‐2020  

  Furthermore,  we  can  notice  through  the  activities  of  the  JS  that  there  is  a  real  and   effective  communication  activity  between  the  regional  programmes  in  the  overall  Baltic   Sea   region.   Indeed,   we   can   find   at   first   some   meetings   organised   by   the   major   organisations   such   as   the   CBSS   of   the   EUSBSR   that   need   to   coordinate   all   the   cross-­‐ border  and  transnational  programmes  in  order  to  set  a  territorial  cohesion  strategy  as   efficient   as   possible.   For   example,   in   May   2016   is   organised   a   CBSS   meeting   for   the   inauguration  of  the  Polish  presidency  of  the  Council.  It  will  be  held  in  Gdansk  and  they   will  take  the  advantage  of  the  conference  to  present  the  best  examples  of  the  territorial   cooperation   in   the   Baltic   Sea.   In   this   context,   the   JS   of   South   Baltic   programme,   and   particularly  his  Communication  and  Capitalisation  Officer,  play  a  crucial  role  as  they  will   present   successful   projects   such   as   ABC.MULTIMODAL   in   Gdansk,   or   MarTech   LNG.   Secondly,   there   is   another   mission   more   about   internal   communication   with   other   territorial  cooperation   programmes.  In  this  context,  the  European  Interact  programme   encourage   EU   experts   and   employees   to   communicate   in   order   to   disseminate   knowledge  about  EU  structural  policies  and  funds  among  the  workers,  but  also  in  order   to  compare  and  exchange  best  practice  examples.  There  are  frequent  events  organised   by   the   EU   and   the   DG   Regio   to   explain   the   goals   and   the   path   of   the   territorial   cooperation  in  general,  and  there  are  events  organised  by  the  programmes  themselves   in   view   of   a   better   understanding,   and   coordination.   For   instance,   in   March   2016,   the   two   JS   of   the   cross-­‐border   programmes   Interreg   South   Baltic   and   Interreg   Central   Baltic   met   in   Gdansk.   The   goal   of   this   meeting   was   to   share   experiences   about   how   to   tackle   similar   issues   in   the   management   of   the   calls   and   the   implementation   of   the   projects.   As     61    

Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

they have  similar  geographical  and  socio-­‐economic  stakes  (maritime  environment,  high   pollution,  high  disparities...)  they  experiences  are  comparable.  The  improvement  of  the   functioning   is   thus   progressing   step   by   step,   day-­‐by-­‐day   throughout   the   experience   gained  by  EU  experts  and  programmes  organisers.     So   this   complex   organisation   of   the   decision   making   process   is   actually   hard   to   make  more  simple  because   it   has   to   take   in   account   the   point   of   views   and   the   priorities   of  very  different  actors.  We  evoked  in  the  I.B.2  the  “Triple  Helix”  model.  So  we  clearly  see   here   that   the   JS   activity   is   dedicated   to   the   functioning   of   the   programme   and   the   communication  between  actors  of  this  “Triple   Helix”85.  Indeed,  they  are  always  in  touch   with   multinational   (ERDF,   Interact,   EUSBSR,   Baltic   Euroregion)   ,   national   (ministers,   national  representatives  in  the  MC  delegations)  and  regional  (regional  decision  makers   of   the   MC,   local   experts)   stakeholders;   and   these   actors   are   from   different   milieus:   economic,  public  and  university  sectors.  This  is  made  to  preserve  as  much  as  possible  the   common   interest   decided   by   the   programme   and   the   cross-­‐border   regions,   but   in   accordance   with   the   specificities   of   all   partner   states.  Nevertheless,   between   Interreg   IV   and   Interreg   V,   even   if   the   overall   scheme   did   not   change,   we   can   notice   some   streamlined  processes.  Indeed,  before,  the  tasks  of  the  MC  were  separated  and  dedicated   to  two  organs.  Under  Interreg  IV,  the  MC  was  responsible  for  the  overall  decisions  about   the  programme  like  the  scope  of  the  call  for  example,  or  approving  reports,  sending  to   the   MA,   whereas   the   Steering   Committee,   that   does   not   exist   anymore,   was   only   responsible   for   selection   projects.   However,   these   tasks   are   closely   linked   and   sometimes  it  could  create  some  difficulties,  as  explain  us  the  Programme  Manager  of  the   JS:       “The  practice  showed  that  90%  of  people  were  the  same  and  sometimes  they  were  confused  ‘where   we  are’.  And  from  the  procedure  point  of  view  it  was  very  difficult  for  us.  We  recommended  several   projects  to  be  approved  but  provided  that  MC  will  decide  that  some  resources  are  shifted  from  one   measure   to   another,   because   at   the   later   stage   of   the   programme   some   objectives   were   fulfilled   and   some   others  were  lacking  money.  But  shifting  money   form   a  measure   to  another  was  the   decision  of   the  MC,  while  it  was  asked  by  the  SC.  So  this  was  like  concrete  problem  that  should  be  solved  by  the   86 same  people,  having  the  same  picture  of  the  problem.”  

To   conclude,   we   can   argue   that   the   internal   functioning   of   the   South   Baltic   programme   is   complex   but   preserves   at   the   same   time   the   common   interest   of   the   partners.   Finally,   we   saw   that   it   has   been   slightly   streamlined.   Therefore   we   could   wonder  now  how  these  improvements  about  the  construction  process  and  the  decision   making   influenced   the   policy   of   the   programme   and   more   precisely   the   transport   priority.  


Op.  Cit,  REINMANN  Katri-­‐Liis,  2009    See  Interview  with  Robert  Mazurkiewicz  in  Annexe  



3) A streamlined  programming  with  Interreg  V:  what  impact  on   the  transport  policy?     The  streamlined  system  to  set  up  a  new  programme  and  the  many  interests  of  the   stakeholders  led  to  a  new  overall  strategy  for  territorial  cohesion  and  especially  a  new   transport  policy.  So  we  will  explain  in  this  part  what  is  new  in  the  Programme  Manual   for  transports  and  what  are  the  new  imperatives  towards  the  applicants.     So  finally,  all  decision  makers  agreed  on  a  common  general  objective:  “To  increase   the   Blue   and   Green   growth   potential   of   the   South   Baltic   area   through   cross-­‐border   cooperation”87.  Hence  the  Blue  and  Green  Growth,  appears  as  a  recall  of  the  Lisbon  and   Europe   2020   Strategies   (growth,   jobs,   attractivity)   but   at   the   same   time   a   good   compromise   gathering   the   main   issues   of   the   SBR.   Indeed,   the   Blue   growth   aims   to   develop   the   economic   potential   of   the   sea   and   coasts   for   growth   and   jobs,   without   excluding  the  sustainability  requirement  from  the  objectives.  So  under  the  umbrella  of   the   Blue   growth,   would   be   supported   projects   dealing   with   sustainable   energy   production   (wind,   wave   and   thermal),   aquaculture   and   fishery,   shipping   transport,   maritime   tourism,   desalination,   maritime   resources   for   mining   or   biotechnology,   and   maritime   and   environmental   security.   It   would   entail   the   reflexion   about   a   common   and   streamlined   “maritime   spatial   planning   for   combined   uses   of   maritime   resources”.   Secondly,  the  Green  growth  is  dedicated  to  the  development  of  the  green  economy.  We   can  remark  that  in  this  scheme,  the  environmental  requirement  is  handled  to  fit  with  the   economic   requirement,   in   view   of   the   employed   expression.   Indeed,   it   is   true   that   the   privileged   sectors   are   the   ones   with   a   possibility   of   economic   proficiency.   Hence,   the   programme   claims   to   fund   projects   supporting   renewability   and   efficiency   of   the   electricity   management,   green   construction,   transportation,   agriculture   and   tourism,   and   sustainable   management   of   the   environment.   By   this   way,   the   South   Baltic   Programme  steers  funding  policies  aiming  to  “use  the  common  potential  of  the  Baltic  Sea   for   the   stimulation   of   “blue   and   green   growth   through   cooperation”   and   improve   living   conditions  of  its  inhabitants,  while  respecting  the  area’s  rich  environmental  and  heritage   resources.   The   SBP’s   interventions   focus   on   the   common   assets   of   the   South   Baltic   area,   i.e.   the  maritime  economy  (blue  sector)  and  sectors  of  the  economy  related  to  the  sustainable   use  of  natural  resources  (green  sector)”88.  Therefore  we  see  the  requirement  of  a  limited   choice   of   objectives   by   the   ERDF   entailed   the   establishment   of   a   motto   in   order   to   highlight   the   common   goals   of   the   participants,   and   the   fundamental   reasons   of   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation.   This   motto   that   is   used   even   sometimes   like   a   commercial   brand,   is   actually   highly   present   in   the   4   Priority   Axis,   selected   and   based   on   the   Thematic   Objectives   of   the   ERDF   regulation.   Thus   the   PA   1   aims   to   strengthen   international   attractiveness   and   innovation   capacity   of   the   South   Baltic   blue  and  green   economy  and   is   based   on   the   selection   of   the   TO   3.   The   PA   2   is   dedicated   to   enhance   the   exploitation   the   environmental   and   cultural   potential   of   the   South   Baltic   Area   for   the   blue  and  green  growth,  according  the  selection  of  TO  6.  The  PA  3  might  improve  cross-­‐                                                                                                                         87

Op.  Cit,  Programme  Manual  Interreg  2014-­‐2020,  p.13-­‐14-­‐15    Idem,  p.93  



Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

border connectivity  for  a  functional  blue  and  green  transport  area,  because  of  TO  7.  And   finally   the   PA   4   aims   to   boost   human   resource   capacities   for   the   area’s   blue  and  green   economy89,  as  they  selected  TO  8  as  one  of  their  priority(The  PA  5  is  only  the  obligatory   fund  allocation  for  the  implementation  and  functioning  of  the  programme,  to  build  the   actors’  capacities).       In   this   2014-­‐2020   programme,   we   can   see   that   accessibility   and   transports   are   now  representing  a  whole  Priority.  So  we  can  argue  that  it  is  a  highly  important  common   issue   for   all   the   countries,   and   a   crucial   point   to   improve   for   the   region.   The   goal   of   improved   connectivity   is   detailed   through   the   selection   of   the   Investment   Priority   7c,   which   is   actually   the   development   and   improvement   of   environmental-­‐friendly   transport   systems,   including   waterborne   transports   and   infrastructures   such   as   ports,   and   the   development   of   multimodal   links   to   promote   regional   and   local   mobility.   This   thematic  might  be  also  very  consensual,  like  the  environmental  thematic,  because  all  the   countries  share  these  problems  of  accessibility  and  pollution,  and  it  is  at  the  same  time  a   good  way  to  rebalance  means  of  transport  across  the  sea.  So  we  assume  that  it  was  less   problematic  for  the  programme  to  elaborate  PA  2  and  PA  3  than  to  find  an  agreement   about   how   to   support   SMEs   or   labour   mobility   as   the   topic   of   the   brain   drain   issue   is   always   very   cleaving   in   the   SBR.   Therefore,   we   would   not   be   surprised   reading   the   reasons   of   this   IP   in   the   Programme   Manual.   They   obviously   evoke   the   reason   of   the   overall  connectivity  of  the  region:  “The   IP   has   been   chosen   in   order   to   create   possibilities   to  enhance  the  connectivity  between  the  Baltic  Sea  regions”.  Although  they  strongly  insist   on   the   importance   of   rebalancing,   and   harmonising   behaviours,   put   together   with   the   environmental   requirements:   “reducing   the   disparities   in   the   use   of   environmentally   friendly  forms  of  transport,  which  are  very  evident  between  the  eastern  and  western  parts   of   the   region90”.   Consequently,   they   wrote   a   simple   statement   to   describe   the   Specific   Objective   3,   linked   with   the   PA   3:   simply   “improve   the   quality   and   environmental   sustainability  of  transport  services  in  the  South  Baltic  area”.   Hence,   the   programme   has   chosen   to   allocate   €15  789  000   for   this   priority,   a   sum   representing   19%   of   the   total   ERDF  budget.  So  this  is  quite  significant  as  this  is  the  second  biggest  investment  of  the   programme.  Indeed,  the  PA  1  received  12%,  the  PA  4,  10%,  and  the  very  important  PA  2,   about  environment  has  been  allocated  of  48%  (11%  left  are  used  for  capacity  building,   professionals,  and  implementation).  So  within  Interreg  V,  the  accessibility  field  got  a  real   a  precise  amount  of  funds,  while  within  Interreg  IV,  the  transport  issue  was  lost  in  the   crowd  of  objectives  under  the  Priority  1  aiming  to  improve  economic  attractivity  in  the   SBR.   So   we   can   argue   that   the   streamlining   of   the   construction   process   and   decision   making   has   been   a   positive   impact   on   the   transport   policy.   It   is   true   that   we   don’t   know   yet  the  real  impacts  that  will  have  this  new  policy  on  the  projects  implementation,  and   what  opportunities  will  be  created  by  the  new  projects.  Although  we  can  easily  assume   that  a  clear  goal  about  transport  policy  and  a  precise  dedicated  fund  could  entail  a  more   efficient   selection   of   programmes   and   of   course   more   funds   for   this   topic.   Besides   a                                                                                                                           89

Idem,  p.15    Idem,  p.12  



better framework   for   the   transport   policy,   the   new   Programme   Manual   gives   even   precise  expectations,  and  some  examples  of  actions  like  “small-­‐scale  pilot  investments  to   lower   the   footprint   of   transports”,   “to   improve   interoperability”,   “mobility   management   schemes   for   less   accessible   areas   and   for   areas   suffering   from   negative   demographic   changes”,  “improving  sustainability”91,  etc...  At  the  same  time,  their  preserve  their  role  of   small-­‐scale   programme   by   favouring   soft   measures   concerning   services   like   green   multimodality,  cross-­‐border  ticketing,  information  systems,  etc...  So  in  general,  Interreg   V   gives   more   indications   and   precise   idea   of   expectations,   meanwhile   the   allocated   amount  of  money  is  higher  than  before.     Moreover,  the  experience  gained  by  the  professionals  and  the  experts  during  the   implementation  of  the  previous  South  Baltic  Interreg  programme  may  be  very  valuable   for  the  efficiency  of  the  new  programme.  Indeed,  the  Project  Officers  of  the  JS  may  have   more  experience  and  more  precise  idea  about  the  quality  of  applying  projects,  and  other   experts  from  the  MC  or  the  MA  as  well.  Moreover,  as  Interreg  gained  in  fame,  more  and   more  actors,  like  ports,  public  transport  authorities,  airports,  operators,  etc,  are  applying   to   the   programme.   So   despite   the   small-­‐scale   power   of   the   South   Baltic   programme,   actors   in   the   field   of   transports   are   more   and   more   aware   about   the   opportunities   offered   by   the   cross-­‐border   programme.   Furthermore,   applicants   gained   in   experience   as   well   in   the   field   of   European   studies.   Indeed   this   kind   of   very   precise   knowledge   is   more   and   more   valuable   for   applicants,   and   a   kind   of   network   of   experts   have   been   established   in   order   to   help   actors   to   apply   to   EU   programmes   in   general.   So   we   have   to   know   that   all   actors   of   the   programme,   on   both   organisational   and   applicant   sides   gained   in   professional   skills   and   EU   knowledge,   because   of   the   success   of   the   former   programme   and   the   results   of   the   communication   campaign   led   by   the   SB   programme   and  Interact.     In  this  context,  experts  from  the  organisational  side  have  to  rise  up  their  level  of   requirement   and   their   expectations   towards   applicants.   They   can   really   act   as   clients   that  are  making  a  choice  between  several  products;  the  concurrence  between  applicants   is  then  higher  than  in  2007-­‐2013.  So  Project  Officers  and  experts  from  the  MC  that  select   the  projects  will  have  a  better  choice  after  each  call.  Hence  they  are  able  to  choose  the   projects   that   will   fulfil   the   most   the   requirements.   Then   it   would   be   easier   to   refuse   some  projects  that  seems  to  be  interesting  but  that  are  not  respecting  the  cross-­‐border   requirement.   For   example,   some   applicants   consider   the   opportunity   of   Interreg   funds   only   to   reach   their   own   goal   and   develop   their   own   project,   and   they   gather   partners   that   have   less   interest   in   this   cooperation,   only   to   try   to   respect   the   cross-­‐border   requirement.   So   nowadays,   it   might   be   more   difficult   for   this   kind   of   applicants   to   see   their   projects   selected.   Moreover,   Interreg   experts   can   expect   better   diagnostic,   surveys   and  studies  about  the  real  needs  of  the  region.  Applicants  should  justify  very  precisely   the  benefits  that  could  bring  their  project,  in  view  of  real  and  pressuring  needs  of  lacks   of   the   region   spotted   during   their   territorial   study.   Thus   the   allocation   of   funds   with                                                                                                                           91

Idem,  p.  58  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Interreg V  may  be  better  constructed,  especially  in  the  case  of  transport  policies  that  will   receive  a  more  consequent  and  more  defined  amount  of  money.  And  at  the  same  time,   this   streamlining   allows   programme   stakeholders   to   receive   applications   with   a   better   quality.     So  in  conclusion,  we  have  seen  in  this  section  that  the  new  programming  period   entailed  a  streamlining  of  EU  funding  in  general  and  South  Baltic  Interreg  in  particular.   The  ERDF  requirements,  by  streamlining  the  construction  process,  the  programme  had   to   create   more   precise   common   goals.   Moreover,   the   streamlining   of   the   internal   decision   making   preserved   the   multi-­‐level   and   multi-­‐sector   cooperation   between   very   different  actors.  Finally,  this  entailed  a  clear  allocation  of  funds  for  the  improvement  of   accessibility   and   sustainable   transports   that   should   create   a   more   efficient   transport   policy   within   the   new   South   Baltic   programme.   However,   despite   these   changes,   some   problems   remain   and   seem   hard   to   change   as   they   are   not   always   belonging   to   the   programme  policy  itself.    

B. The remaining  challenges  in  cooperation  for  Territorial   Cohesion  in  the  South  Baltic  Region     This   section   is   dedicated   to   expose   the   remaining   challenges   for   territorial   cohesion   of   the   South-­‐Baltic   region   in   terms   of   cross-­‐border   cooperation   and   accessibility.   These   problems   can   be   either   belonging   to   internal   incoherencies   within   the  programme  organisation  itself,  or  belonging  to  the  remaining  geopolitical  blockages,   especially   because   of   border   and   infrastructure   issues   in   Kaliningrad.   At   last   we   will   question   the   efficiency   of   coordination   between   EU   and   Pan-­‐Baltic   institutions   in   general.   1) Internal  challenges  during  the  implementation  of  the  South   Baltic  programme     We   will   explain   in   this   part   the   remaining   challenges   of   the   cooperation   at   the   narrow   scale   of   the   programme   itself.   Some   dysfunctions,   irregularities   or   problems   belong   especially   to   the   internal   system   of   the   programme   in   the   decision-­‐making   process   and   the   implementation   of   projects.   Therefore   this   part   will   describe   at   first   the   challenges  remaining  because  of  the  administrative  system  of  the  programme,  and  then   it   will   explain   some   irregularities   created   during   the   decision-­‐making   because   of   relational  challenges  between  authorities  and  stakeholders.     So   we   can   identify   a   first   sort   of   problems   due   to   the   administrative   organisation   of   the   system.   Indeed,   as   we   saw   throughout   this   thesis,   the   territorial   cooperation   is   realised   by   institutions,   transnational   or   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programmes   that   have  quite  complex  organisational  systems.  This  is  a  relevant  way  to  preserve  the  best   decision-­‐making   and   quite   efficient   to   comprise   all   the   different   interests   and   perspectives  from  all  these  different  actors.  At  the  same  time,  it  can  be  a  problem  for  the  


applicants if   they   do   not   have   enough   knowledge,   skills   and   experience   in   EU   culture.   For  example,  during  the  last  Interreg  period,  some  project  implementations  have  failed   because   the   core   of   the   project   turned   out   to   be   of   little   help   only,   and   then   the   grant   funding   is   stopped   because   public   money   may   not   be   wasted.   Hence,   this   problem   has   been  explained  by  the  Programme  Manager  of  the  JS:   “They  are  developing  something,  but  actually,  they  realise  that  there  is  no  need  for  that.  And  this  is  a   really   huge   problem.   They   are   working,   preparing   some   reports,   etc,   but   nothing   will   be   reused.   For   example,   they   would   like   to   develop   some   new   technologies,   and   then,   what   if   the   research   part   will   provide  that  there  is  no  need?  We  had  2  or  3  such  cases;  they  expected  that  the  reports  would  say  yes.”  

However, they   acknowledged   the   problem   and   they   changed   their   approach.   That’s   why   “now   they   have   to   prove   since   the   very   beginning   the   need   for   their   project”.  So  it  demand   more  upstream  work  and  efforts  from  the  applicants  in  order  to  propose  more  relevant   projects  and  to  remain  at  the  same  level  with  other  applying  projects,  that  are  actually   competing   each   other.   The   applicants   might   need   to   hire   new   experts   or   pay   new   surveys   for   example,   while   they   do   not   always   have   enough   money,   knowledge   or   expertise  to  afford  it.  Moreover,  once  the  project  has  been  selected,  the  Lead  Beneficiary   (LB)   is   responsible   for   the   management   of   the   implementation   from   start   to   finish,   including  the  management  of  funds.  As  such,  Lead  beneficiaries  can  of  course  be  assisted   by   Contact   Points   or   JS,   but   they   are   responsible   in   the   accounting   assessment   of   the   project,   and   at   the   end   of   the   implementation,   they   will   get   the   grant   funds   by   the   ERDF   though  the  Interreg  programme.  And  if  there  is  a  mistake  at  one  moment,  like  funds  that   have  been  counted  as  refundable,  but  that  are  legally  not,  the  LB  has  to  reimburse  this   amount   of   money.   Indeed,   during   and   after   the   reimbursement   sessions   some   accounting   experts   are   checking   the   legal   compliance   of   all   allocated   grant   funds,   and   sometimes  they  will  notice  some  mistakes  in  the  accountings  of  the  LB.  But  most  of  the   time,  due  to  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  functioning  of  the  authority  or  organisation,  the  money  has   been  already  spent.  Consequently,  it  means  that  if  the  Lead  Beneficiary  does  a  mistake  in   the   accounting   task,   they   may   have   to   reimburse   this   amount   of   money,   months   later,   while   they   do   not   have   this   money   anymore   in   some   cases.   Therefore,   all   LB   should   either   have   the   skills   to   deal   with   this   legal   and   financial   issue,   or   they   have   to   hire   experts.  In  both  cases,  this  might  be  a  burden  for  the  smallest  organisation.  These  ones   are   however   the   most   concerned   by   this   issue   as   they   are   often   not   able   to   reimburse   in   case  of  conflict.  These  are  examples  but  it  illustrates  a  general  situation.  Indeed,  it  is  in   practice  very  hard  for  small  organisations,  associations  or  NGOs  to  apply  because  most   of  the  time  they  have  a  lack  of  knowledge,  expertise  and  EU  administrative  culture,  and  a   lack  of  money  to  launch  the  projects  pending  ERDF  repayment.  In  her  paper,  Katri-­‐Liis   Reinmann   noticed   the   same   problem   for   transnational   cooperation:   “the   absence   of   stable   funding   limits   the   ability   to   make   commitments   on   a   long-­‐term   basis,   which   turn   diminishes   the   likelihood   for   receiving   a   grant   or   loan.   (...)   NGOs   need   stable   funding   in   order  to  cover  operational  costs”92.   However,   small-­‐scale   and   bottom-­‐up   aspects   of   the   Interreg   programme   needs   particularly   the   participation   of   these   small   actors.   Some                                                                                                                           92

Op.  Cit.,  REINMANN,  p.27  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

solutions are  set  up  sometimes  in  order  to  attract  them  and  to  help  them  to  implement   their  project,  but  in  general  these  organisations  could  be  afraid  to  be  overwhelmed.  So   even   if   the   programme   made   efforts   to   streamline   their   process,   and   to   attract   small   organisations,   the   technical   administrative   schemes   can   be   considered   as   burden   sometimes.     The   second   kind   of   dysfunctions   may   belong   more   to   the   programme   level   and   the   relations   between   the   different   bodies   of   the   programme   in   the   decision-­‐making   process.  The  most  obvious  example  is  the  struggle  between  MA  and  MC.  As  we  know,  the   MA   is   strictly   limited   to   the   legal   procedure   and   responsibility   of   the   programme,   and   has  no  power  on  the  MC  decision-­‐making,  in  theory.  However,  in  practice,  this  sharing  of   tasks   can   be   a   little   bit   blurred   because   of   the   repartition   of   representatives   in   the   committees.   Indeed   Poland   hosts   and   manage   the   MA,   but   the   country   has   representatives   who   are   at   the   same   time   in   the   MC   and   the   MA,   so   their   role   is   sometimes  confused  and  their  decision  influenced  when  they  have  to  vote  in  the  MC  as   they   are   pushed   to   follow   the   requirements   of   the   MA.   Even   if   so   far   the   overall   functioning  was  efficient  and  fair,  the  practice  knew  some  slight  incoherencies  between   the   wills   of   the   MA   and   MC   as   précised   by   Mr.   Mazurkiewicz:   “the   MA   has   to   respect   internal  rules,  and  sometimes  they  would  like  to  smuggle  to  be  in  line  with  these  rules”  and   so   that’s   why   sometimes   “for  example  Poland  votes  like  the  MA  wants  them  to  vote”93.   But   in   practice   it   is   not   an   important   problem   because   finally   the   MC   keeps   always   the   power  of  the  final  decision.  Moreover,  there  are  other  incoherencies  in  the  role  played   by   the   MC   in   theory   and   in   practice.   In   theory,   the   South   Baltic   programme   is   a   small-­‐ scale   programme   which   favours   a   bottom-­‐up   application   system.   In   this   sense,   no   directive   should   be   given   to   the   applicants   about   one   precise   goal   to   achieve,   or   one   project  that  would  be  selected  since  the  first  call  because  it  was  expected  from  the  MC.   But   in   practice   sometimes,   they   sparsely   do   choose   projects   that   were   negatively   assessed   by   the   JS   because   it   answers   to   one   specific   need   belonging   to   a   bigger-­‐scale   implementation.     So   this   part   explained   through   few   examples   what   small   difficulties   or   incoherencies   can   affect   the   programme.   Problems   on   the   implementation   scale,   towards  applicant  especially,  and  problems  on  the  programme  organisation  scale  can  be   a   burden   sometimes,   but   it   seems   that   as   many   experts   are   aware   of   that,   it   could   be   tackled  over  time.   2) Geopolitical  challenges:  Kaliningrad  as  a  barrier  for  internal   accessibility         The   improvement   of   accessibility   in   the   region   is   obviously   impeded   by   the   particular  status  of  the  Kaliningrad  enclave.  Today,  any  non-­‐Russian  citizen  is  asked  for   a   visa   if   he   needs   to   enter   on   the   Kaliningrad   territory.   However,   this   enclave   situated   right  between  Lithuania  and  Poland,  on  the  coast  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  would  be  the  shortest                                                                                                                           93

See  Interview  with  Robert  Mazurkiewicz  in  Annexe  


way to   travel   between   Pomorskie   Region   (North   of   Poland)   and   Lithuania   through   territorial   roads.   Thus,   users   have   generally   to   avoid   Kaliningrad   to   cross   the   border   directly  between  Poland  and  Lithuania,  which  is  much  more  on  the  east  and  need  5  more   hours   on   the   road.   So   there   is   an   obvious   gap   of   connectivity   in   the   South-­‐East   Baltic,   because   of   this   geopolitical   situation.   Nevertheless,   cross-­‐border   cooperation   exists   between   Kaliningrad   and   neighbouring   EU   countries.   So   we   will   see   how   cross-­‐border   cooperation  programmes  can  tackle  some  of  the  common  issues  of  the  countries  in  the   region,  despite  the  unchangeable  political  situation.   As   a   military   base,   Kaliningrad   is   a   strategic   point   for   Russia   to   keep   an   access   to   the  South  Baltic  Region,  after  the  USSR  collapse  and  the  born  of  the  Baltic  Sea  states.  But   the  inhabitants  isolated  at  the  same  time  from  the  Russian  territory  and  from  the  rest  of   Europe.  Obviously,  we  can  assume  that  the  socio-­‐economic  situation  of  the  region  is  less   good  than  in  Lithuania  and  Poland  which  benefited    lot  from  the  access  to  the  EU  market   and  the  outcomes  of  territorial  cooperation.  More  than  that,  the  enclave  suffers  from  a   lack   of   environmental   and   public   security.   Indeed,   the   territory   is   still   a   source   of   nuclear  pollution  and  polluting  sewage,  and  at  the  same  time,  public  security  issues  such   as   crime,   drugs,   stolen   vehicles,   trafficking   amber,   alcohol,   cigarettes   and   gasoline   are   prevalent94.   Moreover,   they   are   still   missing   some   infrastructures   that   should   have   been   reconstructed   after   the   WWII,   and   are   still   very   old,   or   destroyed.   So   their   lack   of   accessibility  may  not  be  due  only  to  geopolitical  matters  but  also  due  to  infrastructure   and   technical   issues.   In   this   context,   we   could   imagine   that   a   territorial   cooperation   could  be  one  of  the  solutions  to  improve  the  infrastructures  at  least  at  the  borders  and   to  tackle  common  issues  of  accessibility  and  environment.     But  territorial  cooperation  is  not  new  in  the  region.  On  one  hand,  between  1946   and   1990’s,   there   were   no   borders   between   Lithuania   and   Kaliningrad,   so   institutions   and   people   working   in   cross-­‐border   zones   developed   common   knowledge   and   practices   that   are   still   visible   today.   On   the   other   hand,   this   cross-­‐border   tradition   is   weaker   between   Kaliningrad   and   Poland   as   their   borders   have   been   maintained   during   all   the   second   half   of   the   20th   century.   Since   the   USSR   breakdown,   two   intergovernmental   councils   have   been   established   for   Polish-­‐Russian   and   Lithuanian-­‐Russian   relations.   Those   councils,   under   the   responsibilities   of   Ministries   of   Territorial   Development   in   each   country   used   to   work   mainly   on   environmental   issues,   but   also   economic   cooperation   and   transports.   The   cooperation   started   to   be   more   Europeanised   and   tangible  when  the  Baltic  Euroregion  was  established  in  1998,  committing  Kaliningrad  in   a   maritime   cross-­‐border   cooperation   with   Polish,   Danish,   Swedish   and   Lithuanian   coastal   regions.   After   the   EU   enlargement   in   2004,   Kaliningrad   turned   out   to   be   a   real   enclave   into   EU   as   Lithuania   and   Poland   were   henceforth   in   the   EU   area,   starting   to   benefit   from   territorial   cohesion   programmes.   Thus,   the   cooperation   between   Kaliningrad   and   its   neighbours   shifted   progressively   into   a   cooperation   managed   by   the                                                                                                                           94

MORGESE  Frank,  2003,    “Border  security  implications  for  dual  enlargement:  a  comparison  of  Russia  and   Ukraine”,  in  HERD  Graeme  P,  MORONEY  Jennifer  D.P,  Security  Dynamics  in  the  Former  Soviet  Bloc,  Routeledge,   London  and  New  York,  235  p.,  p.  87  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

ETC programmes.  A  first  cooperation  programme  started  between  Poland,  Lithuania  and   Kaliningrad  for  the  period  2004-­‐2006.  It  comprised  a  contribution  of  €36.5  million  and   entailed  the  implementation  of  162  projects.  So  we  could  imagine  that  the  cross-­‐border   cooperation   with   this   non-­‐EU   enclave   might   have   some   rather   political   effects   on   the   territorial   planning   of   the   region.   That’s   why   the   cooperation   went   on   in   this   way   and   has  been  even  included  in  a  large  European  programme  of  cooperation  on  the  external   borders   of   the   area:   the   European   Neighbouring   and   Partnership   Instrument   (ENPI).   This   programme   actually   supporting   the   European   Neighbourhood   Policy   has   been   streamlined   and   renewed   in   2007,   comprising   under   the   same   umbrella   Mediterranean,   Caucasian,   or   Eastern   cooperation   programmes,   and   it   aims   to   support   democratic   transition,   transition   and   introduction   in   the   market   economy,   and   promotion   of   sustainable   development.   In   this   context,   a   new   cross-­‐border   cooperation,   Interreg   programme   has   been   launched   for   2007-­‐2013,   under   the   ENPI   legislation.   This   programme   had   3   overall   priorities:   solving   common   problems,   and   pursuing   social,   economic  and  spatial  development95.  The  sustainability  issue  was  in  this  context  the  first   measure   of   the   first   priority   and   accessibility   was   the   second.   So   as   we   can   see,   accessibility   was   a   rather   important   issue   in   the   objectives   of   the   programme.   Thus,   between  2007  and  2013,  three  large-­‐scale  programmes  and  two  other  projects  has  been   launched  in  order  to  improve  the  accessibility  of  the  region.  That’s  why,  this  programme   entailed  the  creation  of  new  road  sections  such  as  a  bridge  between  Panemune  (LT)  and   Sovetsk   (RU),   national   roads   within   the   Gołdap   –   Kowale   Oleckie   section   (PL),   or   reconstruction  of  roads  facilitating  the  connexion  between  the  three  countries.  Smaller   projects  were,  as  the  South-­‐Baltic  programme,  implementing  some  projects  linked  with   services   and   costumers   facilities,   for   example   some   projects   to   speed   up   the   customs   control  procedures  to  make  quicker  the  cargo  and  passenger  transit  between  Lithuania   and  Kaliningrad.  This  ENPI  cooperation  was  supported  by  an  ERDF  contribution  of  €132   129   733   and   €43   999  000   from   the   Russian   side.   On   the   large   scale,   the   goal   of   improving   accessibility   was   connected   to   the   need   to   be   in   line   with   the   TEN-­‐T   network   policy.  Hence,  a  facilitated  path  in  Kaliningrad,  including  administrative  procedures  and   infrastructure   facilities,   would   improve   the   corridor   connecting   Brussels   Berlin,   Warsaw,   Kaunas   and   North-­‐East   Europe.   So   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programme   through   ENPI   is   able   to   improve   accessibility,   also   included   in   a   large   scale   European   policy,  and  according  to  Mikhail  Plyukhin,  “this  partnership  has  significantly  contributed   to   the   social   and   economical   development   of   the   region”96.  However,  this  programme  did   not  start  again  for  the  2014-­‐2020  programming  period.  Indeed,  political  disagreements   remain   and   the   central   power   in   Russia   that   wants   to   control   the   actions   of   the   local   actors   does   not   understand   the   local   and   precise   needs   of   the   ground.   In   this   sense,   cooperation   with   Kaliningrad   is   always   depending   on   the   geopolitical   context   and   comprises  ups  and  downs  that  make  the  sustainable  cooperation  complicated.                                                                                                                           95

INTERREG  PL-­‐LT-­‐RU  2007-­‐2013,  Official  Website  “History  of  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  the  eligible  area”  -­‐­‐pl-­‐,1,19  (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐12)   96  PLYUKHIN  Mikhail,  2009,  “Cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  the  Kaliningrad  region:  problems  and  prospects”,  in   Baltic  Region,  p.65-­‐67,  p.  66  -­‐  http://nbn-­‐­‐ssoar-­‐254706  (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐12)  


However, other   informal   forms   of   cooperation   exist   between   Poland,   Lithuania   and  Kaliningrad.  The  neighbouring  cross-­‐border  programme  Interreg  South  Baltic  has  in   its  Manual  since  its  creation  in  2007,  a  paragraph  enabling  the  cooperation  with  actors   from  Kaliningrad.  At  first,  the  South  Baltic  programme  understood  in  2007  the  necessity   to  have  a  complementary  action  with  the  ENPI  programme  LT-­‐PL-­‐RU.  Indeed,  up  to  10%   of   their   expenditure   was   actually   dedicated   to   projects   implemented   both   outside   and   inside   EU   areas,   only   in   the   interest   of   EU   communities   and   “in   the   South   Baltic   programme   the   Kaliningrad   region   is   of   particular   interest   when   implementing   the   10%   rule”97.   At   the   same   time,   the   programme   planned   to   include   cooperation   with   actors   from   the   Kaliningrad   area,   but   only   as   associated   partners   as   ERDF   could   not   finance   directly  external  EU  actors.  As  it  was  explained  in  the  Operational  programme  of  2007:   “the   South   Baltic   Programme   may   complement   these   activities   by   encouraging   co-­‐ operation  with  the  Kaliningrad  region,  under  the  condition  set  out  in  the  ERDF  regulation   that   these   undertakings   will   be   for   the   benefit   of   the   EU   regions”98.   Today,   as   explained   pages   112   and   113   of   the   new   Programme   manual   of   2014,   the   South   Baltic   Programme   has  the  same  position  as  in  2007  about  cooperation  with  Kaliningrad  actors.       But  cooperation  with  Kaliningrad  region  through  European  programmes  remains   irregular   and   complicated   as   it   was   explained   in   one   Report   Cross   Border   cooperation   with  associated  organisations  from  Kaliningrad  during  the  2007-­‐2013  Programme,   made   in  March  2015  for  the  South  Baltic  programme.  They  reported  several  testimonies  from   former   beneficiaries   of   the   Interreg   programme   that   collaborated   with   partners   from   Kaliningrad.   The   main   difficulties   lied   in   financial   and   administrative   issues.   For   example   some   partners   complained   that   they   had   to   cover   the   costs   of   their   Russian   partners   as   they   were   unable   to   afford   project   activities   such   as   meetings   or   seed   investments.   Moreover,   other   beneficiaries   said   that   it   was   hard   for   them   to   find   the   relevant  people  for  cooperation  as  Russian  partners  changed  often  their  responsabilities   and  disappeared  or  moved  suddenly  to  other  project99.  Some  reasons  are  linked  to  the   administrative  deficiency  of  the  region,  as  it  remains  an  isolated  and  poor  enclave,  while   other   reasons   belongs   to   decisions   from   Moscow,   disconnected   from   the   reality   of   the   Kaliningrad   region.   In   general,   it   also   belongs   to   the   incapacity   of   the   actors   to   have   enough  funds  for  cooperation.     So   to   conclude,   we   can   say   that   despite   all   the   efforts   of   local   actors   to   cooperate,   the   geopolitical   context   does   not   allow   them   to   cooperate   properly.   This   Russian   territory   belongs   neither   to   EU   nor   Schengen   Area   obviously,   so   the   institutional   cooperation   might   be   more   difficult   as   there   is   no   common   legal   basis   and   no   free   circulation  at  the  borders  as  we  saw  also  previously.  This  institutional  and  political  gap   has  been  highly  increased  by  the  EU  accession  of  Poland  and  Lithuania,  and  this  can  be   illustrated   by   this   study   from   Tadeusz   Palmowski:   “Before   Poland’s   accession   to   the                                                                                                                           97

Op.  Cit.  Operational  programme  2007,  p.8    Idem,  p.  43   99  HIRST  Clarissa,  2015,  “Cross-­‐border  cooperation  with  associated  organisations  from  Kaliningrad  during  the   2007-­‐2013  Programme”,  Report  for  Interreg  South  Baltic,  Gdansk,  14  p.,  p.  13   98


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Schengen Area,  2.5  to  5 thousand  persons  crossed  the  border  at  Gronowo-­‐  Mamonovo,  as   against  1.5  to  2  thousand  in  2008.  The  entire  human  border  traffic,  which  in  2007  stood  at   almost   3   million,   dropped   in   2009   to   less   than   1.3   million   people”100.   So   the   geopolitics   influenced   directly   people’s   behaviour.   However,   we   have   to   know   that,   since   December   2011,  an  agreement  between  Polish  and  Russian  governments  settled  the  creation  of  a   special   permit   available   for   Kalinigrad   and   parts   of   Pomerania,   Warmia   and   Mazurian   regions,  which  allows  inhabitants  to  cross  the  border  with  a  passport  only  (No  need  for   a  visa)101.  But  we  can  remark  that  this  measure  still  oblige  people  to  do  the  demarche  to   acquire   this   permit,   and   it   concerns   only   people   from   specific   regions,   so   it   can   barely   improve  commerce  and  general  accessibility  for  all  people.     In  general,  this  Kaliningrad  enclave,  because  of  the  geopolitical  context,  impedes   the   South   Baltic   programme   acting   for   accessibility.   But   this   small-­‐scale   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programme   might   has   a   much   further   limit,   belonging   to   the   institutional   and  political  issues  comprised  in  the  EU  community.   3) Institutional  challenges  concerning  cross-­‐border  cooperation   in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  the  EU  structural  policies   Finally,   after   internal   and   geopolitical   challenges   impeding   a   maximal   efficiency   in   cross-­‐border   cooperation   to   improve   accessibility   in   the   BSR,   this   part   will   give   an   insight   of   the   major   challenges   of   cooperation   on   the   Pan-­‐Baltic   level   and   European   level.   We   will   see   by   the   way   that   there   are   institutional   limits   for   cooperation   on   the   region  of  the  Baltic  Sea,  but  also  institutional  and  technical  challenges  on  the  European   scale   in   general.   In   conclusion,   we   will   see   to   what   extend   the   small-­‐scale   cooperation   programme   of   the   Baltic   Sea   is   torn   between   these   political   issues   belonging   to   the   European  Union  and  the  relevance  of  the  local  implementation.   So   at   first,   we   should   notice   the   practical   limits   of   cooperation   in   the   Baltic   Sea   Region   within   the   numerous   Pan-­‐Baltic   and   Euregional   organisations.   Indeed,   we   saw   already  that  the  CBSS  created  in  1992  is  now  doubled  by  European  organisations  such   the  Baltic  Euroregion  and  the  EU  Strategy  for  the  BSR.  So  we  can  wonder  to  what  extend   the  EU  is  more  efficient  than  the  original  Pan-­‐Baltic  organisations  in  order  to  implement   an  common  strategy  for  the  region.  We  saw  already  that  the  EUSBSR  is  able  to  gather  all   these   regional   contribution   and   to   include   the   Strategy   of   the   BSR   in   the   general   EU   Strategy,   especially   for   transport   networks.   However,   it   is   true   that   the   relations   between   these   institutions   can   sometimes   reveal   the   political   gaps   between   the   countries  of  the  region.  For  example,  Valdis  Krastiņš  explains  in  his  article  “The  Strategy   for   the   Baltic   Region   and   the   Regional   Realities”,   that   these   institutions   are   sometimes   the  instrument  for  an  important  country  of  the  region  to  influence  the  political  direction                                                                                                                           100

PALMOWSKI  Tadeusz,  2010,  “problems  of  cross-­‐border  cooperation  between  Poland  and  the  Kaliningrad   Oblast  of  the  Russian  federation”,  in  Quaestiones  Geographicae,  29(4),  Gdansk  University,  p.75-­‐82,  p.  77   101  POLISH  MINISTRY  OF  THE  INTERIOR  AND  ADMINISTRATION,  Official  Website  -­‐,Local-­‐border-­‐traffic-­‐with-­‐the-­‐Kaliningrad-­‐Region.html  (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐ 08)  


of the   BSR.   The   author   illustrates   this   argument   by   taking   the   example   of   the   Swedish   behaviour  after  their  presidency  of  the  CBSS  in  1997.  It  is  said  that  the  Swedes  tried  to   reform  the  CBSS  policy,  but  the  project  was,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  other  actors   “the  necessary  finances  for  the  projects  was  not  realistic”,  “and  to  a  large  degree  the  CBSS   retained   the   features   of   a   political   discussion   body”.  102  So   in   these   circumstances,   the   Swedish   actors   decided   to   put   much   efforts   in   the   elaboration   of   a   EU   Strategy   for   the   BSR  than  into  an  ageing  CBSS  that  was  not  able  to  propose  new  projects  from  their  point   of   view.   So   to   some   extend,   we   can   argue   that   the   overall   international   policy   of   the   Baltic  Sea  Region  is  still  driven  by  the  different  political  point  of  views  explained  in  the   first  part  of  the  thesis,  by  the  Historical  past.  In  this  sense,  we  can  notice  an  increase  of   multinational   institutions   in   the   BSR,   Pan-­‐Baltic   ones   and   EU   ones,   motivated   by   the   different  interests  of  the  countries.  However,  the  author  Marika  Laizāne-­‐Jurkāne  points   out   the   difficulty   of   logic   coordination   between   all   these   organisations.   Indeed,   she   says,   “The   EUSBSR   tries   to   manoeuvre   among   diverse   strategies,   decisions   and   initiatives   of   other   organisations.   Undoubtedly,   an   attempt   to   create   a   common   framework   document   orientated  towards  the  development  of  the  region  is  positive;  however,  this  Strategy  lacks   the  mechanism  for  its  practical  implementation”.  The  problem  is  that  this  Strategy  tries  to   gather   and   coordinate   all   the   previous   Pan-­‐Baltic   organisations,   through   goals   and   challenges   already   used   by   these   organisations.   And   the   second   difficulty   is   that   this   Strategy   uses   its   power   of   implementation   through   European   Territorial   Cohesion   programmes,   such   as   Interreg   B   or   Interreg   A   South   Baltic,   some   programmes   that   follow   the   ERDF   policy   and   have   to   work   as   well   with   the   Pan-­‐Baltic   organisations.   So   we   can   argue   that   it   might   be   difficult   to   create   a   common   Strategy   gathering   the   expectations  of  different  countries  and  especially  in  a  context  of  over-­‐institutionalisation   of   the   region.   So   we   would   say   that   it   may   be   complicated   and   challenging   to   implement   reasonable   and   relevant   accessibility   policies   in   the   BSR   because   of   this   problem   of   coordination   between   EU   institutions   and   priorities,   Pan-­‐Baltic   orientations   and   national  politics  trying  to  influence  these  institutions.  In  these  circumstances,  the  South   Baltic   programme   collaborates   with   all   major   institutions,   with   EUSBSR,   Baltic   Euroregion   and   CBSS.   For   example,   a   CBSS   conference   for   the   inauguration   of   the   Polish   Presidency   will   be   held   on   the   22   May   2016   to   present   some   of   the   best   examples   of   the   Interreg  collaboration  in  the  BSR.  The  South  Baltic  Programme  will  present  there  among   others,  the  MarTech  LNG  project  and  its  remarkable  spin-­‐off  effects,  while  this  project  is   also  presented  as  a  flagship  project  in  the  EUSBSR.  So  sometimes,  we  can  question  the   utility  of  the  numerous  presences  of  institutions  in  the  Baltic  Sea  Region.   Secondly,   we   have   to   add   the   institutional   limits   of   cooperation   in   Europe   in   general.   Thus   we   can   argue   that   this   over-­‐institutionalisation   on   the   European   scale   can   lead   to   a   decrease   of   efficiency   because   the   more   numerous   the   actors   are,   the   more   difficult   the   cooperation   will   be.   All   have   different   visions   and   perspectives   depending                                                                                                                           102

KRASTIŅŠ  Valdis,  2010,  “The  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Region  and  the  Regional  Realities”,  in  OZOLIŅA,   REINHOLD,  ROSTOCKS,  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  region:  A  Year  After  and  Beyond,  “Zinātne”,  Latvia,  280p.   p.223-­‐232  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

on their  culture,  their  country  and  their  scale  of  action.  In  addition,  all  countries  want  to   influence  the  EU  policies  in  their  favour.  So  consequently  “there  are  considerable  losses  in   the   effectiveness   of   EU   policies   because   the   effects   of   different   policies   are   sometimes   in   conflict  and  therefore  lower  the  impact  of  each  policy  and  lead  to  a  sub-­‐optimal  outcome.   This   phenomenon   is   particularly   apparent   with   regard   to   spatial   development   and   represents   the   costs   of   the   non-­‐coordination   of   EU   policies”103.   This   statement   from   the   Position   Paper   to   the   EU   Green   Paper   on   Territorial   Cohesion   indicates   that   Territorial   Cohesion  needs  to  be  streamlined  and  programmes  have  to  be  coordinated  in  order  to   reduce   this   cost   of   non-­‐coordination.   However,   we   still   can   notice   some   incoherencies   on   the   European   scale   because   policies   are   sometimes   in   conflict.   For   example,   the   Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  has  such  a  funding  system  that  farmers  and  landlords   from   Western   Europe   are   in   fact   favoured   by   this   policy   while   small   farmers,   often   from   Eastern  Europe  are  still  lagging  behind  and  have  less  funds.  But  this  is  in  contradiction   with   the   goals   of   Cohesion   Fund   aiming   to   reduce   economic   disparities   between   countries.  Moreover,  it  recalls  us  that  the  small-­‐scale  implementation  of  the  South  Baltic   programme   that   fosters   Territorial   Cohesion   restrains   the   power   of   the   programme   comparing   to   these   large-­‐scale   European   programmes.   In   this   context,   the   small   scale   South   Baltic   programme   appears   as   rather   weak   and   impotent   to   face   this   problem   of   over-­‐institutionalisation,  because  the  effect  of  the  large  scale  programmes  will  have  an   influence  on  the  South  Baltic  programme  area,  with  or  without  the  will  of  the  actors  of   the   programme.   So   finally,   the   over-­‐institutionalisation   in   Europe   might   limit   the   power   of   action   from   the   small-­‐scale   programmes   for   Territorial   Cohesion,   and   moreover,   it   blurs  the  role  of  the  EU  and  creates  some  costs  of  non-­‐coordination  all  over  the  EU  area.   Thirdly,   we   can   notice   some   practical   limits,   as   barriers   for   efficient   cross-­‐border   cooperation,   on   the   European   scale.   Indeed,   one   typical   problem   that   all   the   programmes   have   is   the   problem   of   the   differences   of   languages   and   institutional/political   cultures.   We   saw   already   the   particularities   of   the   gaps   and   disparities   of   cultures   and   practices   around   the   BSR   and   the   South   Baltic   Region   in   particular,   but   the   basic   problems   of   bilateral   understanding   belongs   to   every   cross-­‐ border  cooperation  programme.  Roland  Scherer  and  Kristina  Zumbusch  have  done  the   same   observations   in   their   article   “Limits   for   successful   cross-­‐border   governance   of   environmental  (and  spatial)  development:  the  Lake  Constance  Region”  in  2011.  They  say   indeed   “differences   in   the   language   often   combined   with   institutional,   cultural,   legal   discrepancies  render  the  conditions  for  co-­‐operation  more  complex”104.  Consequently,  the   success   of   cross-­‐border   cooperation   depends   on   the   knowledge   about   EU   institutions   and   culture   developed   by   the   local   and   institutional   actors   of   every   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programme.   And   indeed,   we   saw   in   the   context   of   the   South   Baltic                                                                                                                           103

BÖHME  Kai  (eds),  2008,  “The  Territorial  Cohesion  Principles  –  Position  Paper  to  the  EU  Green  paper  on   Territorial  Cohesion”,  in  Position  Paper  from  the  ARL,  n.  78,  Academy  for  Spatial  Research  and  Planning,   Hanover,  18p.  p.2   104  SCHERER  Roland  and  ZUMBUSCH  Kristina,  2011,  “Limits  for  successful  cross-­‐border  governance  of   environmental  (and  spatial)  development:  the  Lake  Constance  Region”,  in  Procedia  Social  and  Behavioral   Sciences,  n.14,  Elsevier  Ltd.  p.  101-­‐120.  p.103  


Programme that  local  actors  such  as  entrepreneurs,  universities  or  operators  developed   a   kind   of   specific   knowledge   (III.B.1)   that   help   them   to   apply,   be   selected,   get   ERDF   funds  and  answer  to  the  specific  needs  of  the  programme  in  a  relevant  way.  At  the  same   time   actors   from   the   JS,   MA   and   MC   in   the   programme   develop   a   special   know-­‐how   enabling  a  more  efficient  cooperation  among  them  and  a  know-­‐how  helping  them  to  deal   with  applicants  and  beneficiaries.  Finally,  we  can  draw  the  same  conclusions  as  Scherer   that   says,   “in   practice,   the   only   way   to   achieve   joint   action   has   always   been   and   still   is   through  agreement  or  consent”105.   Hence   wee   can   argue   in   this   sense   that   the   knowledge   developed   by   the   actors   in   the   SBR   corresponds   to   series   of   agreements   or   consents,   belonging  to  the  specific  context  of  the  region,  that  all  actors  accepted  in  order  to  make   the  cooperation  more  efficient.  The  consequence  is  that  “each  region  has  to  find  its  own   way   of   cooperation   and   good-­‐governance,   since   a   universally   valid   model   of   successful   regional   governance   is   not   existing”   according   to   Scherer.   So   we   can   argue   that   every   small-­‐scale   programme   is   developing   actually   its   own   model   of   cooperation   and   consequently   its   own   model   of   spatial   planning   according   to   its   needs,   priorities   and   cooperation   practices.   So   finally,   these   practical   limits   linked   to   different   languages,   perspectives,   and   cultures,   are   actually   shaping   a   particular   model   and   vision   of   local   cross-­‐border   cooperation   through   the   practices   developed   step-­‐by-­‐step   by   local   actors   and   technicians   of   the   programme.   That’s   why,   considering   the   particular   model   developed  by  the  actors  of  the  South  Baltic  programme  step  by  step,  we  could  say  finally   that  this  model  of  cross-­‐border  cooperation  is  unique  in  Europe.  Unique  by  its  number   of  five  participating  countries,  unique  by  its  vision,  its  issues,  its  realisations…     In   final,   we   even   could   argue   that   the   cross-­‐border   programmes   in   general,   by   their  local  aspect,  close  to  the  local  actors,  might  be  some  of  the  most  efficient  tools  for   Territorial   Cohesion   in   Europe   because   it   aims   to   reduce   gaps   between   countries,   to   harmonise   the   EU   territory,   and   it   aims   to   help   cross-­‐border   regions   often   lagging   behind   and   isolated.   Cross-­‐border   programme   are   the   most   adapted   tool   to   the   local   needs  and  local  perspective  and  values.   To   conclude,   we   have   seen   in   this   large   third   part   that   the   South   Baltic   Programme  has  streamlined  its  internal  functioning,  because  since  2014,  the  elaboration   of   the   programme   and   the   decision-­‐making   process   have   more   sense   and   gained   in   efficiency   through   the   enhanced   knowledge   of   the   EU   local   actors.   We   saw   that   it   entailed   a   streamlined   policy   for   transport   and   accessibility   within   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation   programme.   However,   the   second   section   showed   the   remaining   challenges   of   the   cooperation,   on   the   internal   level   of   the   programme,   on   the   geopolitical   level   of   the   region   because   of   the   Kaliningrad   enclave,   and   on   the   Pan-­‐Baltic   and   European   level   of  the  Territorial  Cohesion  policy.      


Idem,  p.  105  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  


This thesis   demonstrated   finally   how   does   the   South   Baltic   programme   participate   to   the   harmonisation   trend   of   transport   means   in   the   region,   whereas   big   disparities   between   involved   countries   could   be   an   obstacle   for   cross-­‐border   cooperation,   and   while   the   EU   developed   already   a   large   range   of   cooperation   programmes.     So   it   could   have   been   hard   for   the   South   Baltic   programme   to   have   an   impact  on  transport  means  in  the  region.  But  we  saw  throughout  the  development  of  the   thesis,  how  relevant  was  this  cross-­‐border  cooperation  programme,  to  tackle  problems   on  the  local  scale.   Indeed,   we   explained   in   the   first   part   the   main   difficulties   of   cooperation   in   the   South   Baltic   because   of   the   socio-­‐economic   and   perspective   gaps   especially   between   Sweden,   Denmark,   and   Germany   on   one   hand,   and   Poland   and   Lithuania   on   the   other   hand,   particularly   explained   by   the   Historical   past   of   the   region.   We   saw   as   well   that   the   programme   could   have   been   insignificant   compared   to   all   the   large-­‐scale   programmes   for  territorial  Cohesion  in  Europe  and  in  the  large  Baltic  Region.  But  we  understood  at   the  end  the  relevance  of  small-­‐scale  cooperation,  included  in  a  range  of  different  scales   of   EU   spatial   policy,   because   of   a   targeted   and   local   action   of   projects,   and   thanks   to   a   system   of   knowledge   sharing.   Indeed,   the   second   part   showed   concrete   tangible   examples   of   the   results   of   this   South   Baltic   cross-­‐border   cooperation   between   2007   and   2013,  especially  in  the  field  of  accessibility  and  sustainable  transports.  We  have  chosen   in   fact   this   field   of   action   because   transport   is   a   tool   particularly   relevant   to   support   Territorial  Cohesion  policy,  in  the  sense  that  it  rebalances  and  harmonises  the  transport   means  across  the  region,  and  moreover,  it  enhances  the  overall  external  accessibility  of   the  region.  But  our  development  would  not  have  been  complete  if  we  had  forgotten  to   explain   the   new   tendency   of   the   programme   in   cross-­‐border   cooperation   for   accessibility   in   the   South   Baltic.   That’s   why   we   saw   in   the   third   and   last   part   how   the   cross-­‐border   action   has   been   streamlined   when   the   new   programming   period   started   in   2014,   and   how   it   influenced   their   position   talking   about   transport   and   accessibility   in   the   SBR.   However,   this   third   part   showed   as   well   that   cross-­‐border   cooperation   for   accessibility  and  sustainability  has  still  many  challenges  to  face:  on  the  internal  level  of   the  programme,  on  the  geographical  level  of  the  region  because  of  Kaliningrad,  and  on   the  overall  level  of  the  EU  institutional  and  administrative  system.     So   in   conclusion,   questioning   the   place   and   the   efficiency   of   the   South   Baltic   programme   in   this   context   of   over-­‐institutionalisation   in   the   BSR   and   in   Europe   and   the   technical  difficulties  of  creating  something  in  common,  we  could  say  that  such  a  cross-­‐ border  programmes  is  particularly  relevant.  Indeed,  the  small-­‐scale  character  allows  the   programme  to  be  closer  to  the  real  needs  of  the  local  actors  and  more  respectful  toward   the  different  visions,  values  and  perspectives  around  the  SBR.  It  is  in  fact  obvious  that   cooperation  is  easier  within  5  partners  than  within  28  partners.  Consequently,  we  may   end   this   thesis   on   the   following   observation:   the   small-­‐scale   cooperation   in   general    


might be   less   efficient   and   impactful   than   the   large   scale   programmes   that   have   much   more  financial  means.  However,  this  kind  of  cross-­‐border  cooperation  is  very  relevant  in   the  context  of  over-­‐institutionalisation  in  Europe  and  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region.  Indeed,  we   could   even   aim   in   this   way,   that   this   over-­‐institutionalisation   does   not   ease   local   governance   and   bottom-­‐up   initiatives,   as   it   is   more   difficult   for   local   actors   to   cooperate   with   far   EU   institutions.   There   is   an   important   lack   of   clarity   in   the   EU   spatial   policy   because  there  is  a  double-­‐speech.  On  one  hand,  as  remind  us  Stefanie  Dühr,  “to  this  day,   the   EU   does   not   have   any   competence   for   spatial   planning”106,   because   there   are   only   directives   about   environment,   security,   etc,   but   there   is   no   common   law   of   spatial   planning   as   it   is   still   a   domestic   prerogative.   On   the   other   hand,   “there   are   many   EU   sectorial   policies   such   as   in   the   fields   of   environment,   agriculture   and   transports   have   a   “spatial  impact”   or   are   implemented   through   domestic   planning   law   and   practice”.  So  the   impact  of  the  EU  on  spatial  planning  is  obvious,  especially  talking  about  EU  programmes   such  as  TEN-­‐T  or  Interreg.  However,  the  EU  is  often  criticised  for  its  lack  of  transparency   and   lack   of   democracy.   Elections   of   the   EU   Parliament   always   suffer   from   significant   abstention   rate,   and   the   role   of   the   EU   Commission   is   still   blurred   for   most   of   the   EU   citizens.  That’s  why  we  can  wonder  to  what  extend  the  EU  spatial  policy  has  legitimacy   in  the  European  territorial  planning.     That’s   why   we   would   argue   finally   that   small-­‐scale   cross-­‐border   cooperation   is   one   of   the   most   relevant   system   of   European   spatial   planning   because   its   particular   bottom-­‐up   approach,   as   seen   previously   (I.B.3),   allows   the   participation   of   local   actors   such  as  local  entrepreneurs,  universities  or  local  operators,  local  experts  in  their  field,  in   the   spatial   planning   through   their   application   and   participation   to   the   South   Baltic   Interreg   programme.   So   the   South   Baltic   programme   appears   as   an   adapted,   relevant   and   local   tool   for   the   enhancement   of   cross-­‐border   Territorial   Cohesion,   because   it   participates   to   the   trend   of   harmonisation,   through   soft   measures   and   knowledge   sharing   in   collaboration   with   local   actors,   a   quite   participative   and   adapted   system   compared  to  general  EU  programmes,  developed  in  a  context  of  over-­‐institutionalisation   and  lack  of  clarity  for  EU  citizens.        


Stefanie  DÜHR,  Claire  COLOMB,  Vincent  NADIN,  2010,  European  Planning  and  Territorial  Cooperation,   Routledge,  Abingdon  and  New  York,  460  p.  p.29  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

ANNEXE I  –  TABLES     BIBLIOGRAPHY:     SCHOLARS   BÖHME  Kai  (eds),  2008,  “The  Territorial  Cohesion  Principles  –  Position  Paper  to  the  EU  Green   paper  on  Territorial  Cohesion”,  in  Position  Paper  from  the  ARL,  n.  78,  Academy  for  Spatial   Research  and  Planning,  Hanover,  18p.   DÜHR  Stefanie  et  al.,  2007,  “The  Europeanization  of  spatial  planning  through  territorial   cooperation”  in  Planning  Practice  &  Research,  22:3  Routledge  ,  16p.   DÜHR  Stefanie,  COLOMB  Claire,  NADIN  Vincent,  2010,  European  Planning  and  Territorial   Cooperation,  Routledge,  Abingdon  and  New  York,  460  p.   ESCARCH  Nicolas,  2012,  “La  région  baltique  ou  la  tentation  du  «  saut  d’échelle  »  entre  Allemagne   divisée  et  «  Allemagne  réunie  »’’,  Mémoire(s),  identité(s),  marginalité(s)  dans  le  monde  occidental   contemporain,  n.8/2012     ESCACH  Nicolas,  2014,  Réseaux  de  Villes  et  recompositions  interterritoriales  dans  l’espace   Baltique,  Thèse  de  doctorat  de  géographie,  aménagement  et  urbanisme,  ENS  Lyon,  463  p.   HISELIUS  Lena  Winslott,  SVENSSONA  Ase,  2014,  “Could  the  increased  use  of  pedelecs  in  Sweden   contribute  to  a  more  sustainable  transport  system”,  Lund  University,  for  The  9th  International   Conference  “ENVIRONMENTAL  ENGINEERING“,  Vilnius,  Lithuania,  14p.   KRASTIŅŠ  Valdis,  2010,  “The  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Region  and  the  Regional  Realities”,  in   OZOLIŅA,  REINHOLD,  ROSTOCKS,  EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  region:  A  Year  After  and  Beyond,   “Zinātne”,  Latvia,  280p.   MATLAND  Richard  E.,  1995,  “Synthesizing  the  Implementation  Literature:  The  Ambiguity-­‐ Conflict  Model  of  Policy  Implementation”,  Journal  of  Public  Administration  Research  and  Theory:   J-­‐PART,  p.145-­‐174,  Oxford  University     MORGESE  Frank,  2003,    “Border  security  implications  for  dual  enlargement:  a  comparison  of   Russia  and  Ukraine”,  in  HERD  Graeme  P,  MORONEY  Jennifer  D.P,  Security  Dynamics  in  the  Former   Soviet  Bloc,  Routeledge,  London  and  New  York,  235  p.   PALMOWSKI  Tadeusz,  2010,  “problems  of  cross-­‐border  cooperation  between  Poland  and  the   Kaliningrad  Oblast  of  the  Russian  federation”,  in  Quaestiones  Geographicae,  29(4),  Gdansk   University,  p.75-­‐82.   PLYUKHIN  Mikhail,  2009,  “Cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  the  Kaliningrad  region:  problems  and   prospects”,  in  Baltic  Region,  p.65-­‐67  


REINMANN Katri-­‐Liis,  2009,  “Euroregions  as  mechanisms  for  strengthening  cross-­‐border   cooperation  in  the  Baltic  Sea  region”,  in  Trames  Journal  of  the  Humanities  and  Social  Sciences,   Estonian  Business  School,  Tallin   RODRIGUE  Jean-­‐Paul  et  al,  2013,  The  Geography  of  Transport  Systems,  3rd  edition,  Routledge,   416p.   RUNBLOM  Harald,  2002,  “The  Hansa”  in  Chapter  “Networks,  states  and  empires  in  the  Baltic   Region”  in     RYDÉN  Lars,  2002,  “The  Baltic  Sea  Region  and  the  relevance  of  regional  approaches”p.7-­‐29,  in   MACIEJEWSKI  Witold  (eds),  The  Baltic  Sea  Region  –  Cultures,  Politics,  Societies,  The  Baltic   University  Press,  Uppsala,  676p.   SCHERER  Roland  and  ZUMBUSCH  Kristina,  2011,  “Limits  for  successful  cross-­‐border  governance   of  environmental  (and  spatial)  development:  the  Lake  Constance  Region”,  in  Procedia  Social  and   Behavioral  Sciences,  n.14,  Elsevier  Ltd.  p.  101-­‐120.  p.103   WILLIAMS  Leena-­‐Kaarina,  2000,  The  Baltic  Sea  Region:  Forms  and  Functions  of  Regional   Cooperation,  revised  version  of  Master  degree  Thesis,  28p.,  p.2     INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC  PROGRAMME  DOCUMENTATION   HIRST  Clarissa,  2015,  “Cross-­‐border  cooperation  with  associated  organisations  from  Kaliningrad   during  the  2007-­‐2013  Programme”,  Report  for  Interreg  South  Baltic,  Gdansk,  14p.   INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  2007,  Operational  programme  for  2007-­‐2013,  76p.   INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  2014,  Programme  Manual  for  2014-­‐2020,  120p.   INTERREG  SOUTH  BALTIC,  2011,  Portfolio  –  Projects  of  the  South  Baltic  Cross-­‐border   Cooperation  Programme  2007-­‐2013,  Gdansk,  Joint  Technical  Secretariat,  72p.   INTERREG  IV  2007-­‐2013,  Official  website  -­‐  http://2007-­‐   INTERREG  V  2014-­‐2020,  Official  Website  -­‐   IOTZOV  Vassilen,  CHESNEL  Nicolas,  KOHLISCH  Thorsten,  2014,  Smart  Transport  Development  in   South  Baltic,  JTS  of  the  SB  programme  2007-­‐2013,  Gdansk,  27p.       EUROPEAN  DOCUMENTATION   CLAROS  Eulalia,  PAPE  Marketa,  2015,  “At  a  Glance  –  Transport  CO2  emissions  in  focus”,   European  Parliamentary  Research  Service,  2  p.   COMMISSION  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  2008,  Green  Paper  on  Territorial  Cohesion   Turning  territorial  diversity  into  strength,  Brussels,  12p    


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   DI  PIAZZA  Barbara,  2015,  Cross-­‐Border  Cooperation  Maritime  Programmes  in  the  2007-­‐2013   programming  period,  INTERACT  study,  ERDF,  195p.   EUROPEAN  COMMISSION,  Official  Website  -­‐   EEA,  Official  Web  site  -­‐     EUROPEAN  UNION,  May  2010,  The  European  Union  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  (EUSBSR),   Background  and  analysis,  Luxembourg,  Editor,  Raphaël  Goulet,  European  Commission  DG  Regio,   156  p.   EUROPEAN  UNION,  2014,  “  Transport”,  in  Eurostat  Regional  Yearkbook,  p.211-­‐232,  Luxembourg   INTERREG  BALTIC  SEA  IV  2007-­‐2013,  2013,  Sustainable,  Multimodal  and  Green  Transport   Corridors  –  Facilitating  Transport  in  the  BSR,  20p.     INTERREG  PL-­‐LT-­‐RU  2007-­‐2013,  Official  Website  “History  of  cross-­‐border  cooperation  in  the   eligible  area”   THE  GALLUP  ORGANISATION  (Hungary),  2007,  “Attitudes  on  issues  related  to  EU  Transport   Policy,  Analytical  report”,  Flash  Barometer,  survey  requested  by  the  DG  Energy  &  Transports,   European  Commission.  82  p.     GOVERNMENTAL  AND  OFFICIAL  DOCUMENTATION   OECD,  2011,  OECD  Urban  Policy  Reviews:  Poland  2011,  OECD  Publishing,  200p.,  p.  76   EMABSSY  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  POLAND  IN  COPENHAGUEN,  21  June  2015,  “Polish-­‐built  LNG   fuelled  ferry  helps  Samsø  fulfil  environmental  ambitions”   POLISH  MINISTRY  OF  THE  INTERIOR  AND  ADMINISTRATION,  Official  Website  -­‐,Local-­‐border-­‐traffic-­‐with-­‐the-­‐Kaliningrad-­‐Region.html     VASAB  SECRETARIAT,  2010,  VASAB  Long-­‐Term  Perspective  for  the  Territorial  Development  of  the   Baltic  Sea  Region,  Visions  and  Strategies  for  the  Baltic,  57p.     NEWSPAPERS   BOLTON  Doug,  “  Sweden  wants  to  become  the  first  fossil  fuel-­‐free  country  in  the  world  –  How  it   will  work?”,  Independant,  2015-­‐10-­‐07     NELSEN  Arthur,  “Wind  power  generates  140%  of  Denmark’s  electricity  demand”,  The  Guardian,   2015-­‐06-­‐10     SHIP&BUNKER,  26  Nov  2015,  “Bomin  Blue  LNG  Joint  Venture  to  Serve  Terminals  in  the  Baltic  and   North  Sea”      


DIVERSE WEBSITES     ABC.MULTIMODAL  Project,  Official  Website  -­‐   ELMOS  Project,  Official  Website  –  http://www.elmos-­‐   ELMOS  Project,  2014,  “Our  Outputs”   FOKS  RENATE,  Nov  2013,  Manual  for  a  Cycling  Master  Plan,  Kalmar  Municipality,   ABC.Multimodal    28  p.   INTERFACE  Project,  Official  Website  -­‐   INTERCOMBI  Ticket,  Official  Website,  http://www.intercombi-­‐   MARTECH  LNG,  Official  Website  -­‐   SBGA  Project,  Official  Website  -­‐  http://www.south-­‐baltic-­‐   PERYCZ-­‐SZCZEPANSKI  Krzysztof,  2014,  Conference  Gdansk  ABC.MULTIMODAL     POLSKIE  LNG,  „LNG  Terminal  in  Poland”­‐lng-­‐w-­‐polsce/     ROSTOCK  PORT  AUTHORITY,  Official  Website  -­‐  http://www.rostock-­‐­‐ rostock/hero/projekte/mos-­‐rostock-­‐gedser.html    


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

TABLE OF  ILLUSTRATIONS:     Figure  1:  Map  of  the  eligible  area  of  the  South  Baltic  programme  for  Interreg  IV  (2007-­‐2013),   NUTS  III  regions      (Source:  Johanna  Roto,  Nordregio,  Nordic  Centre  for  Spatial  Development,   Nov  2012)  ..................................................................................................................................................................  10   Figure  2:  GDP  per  capita  (PPS)  in  relation  to  the  EU  average  (EU=100)  in  2010  in  the  South  Baltic   Region,  screenshot  (source:  ESPON  database,  Eurostat)  .......................................................................  14   Figure  3:  Map  of  the  TEN-­‐T  corridors  network  on  the  EU  territory  for  the  period  2014-­‐2020   (source:  European  Commission)  .....................................................................................................................  26   Figure  4  -­‐  An  insight  of  the  Portlink  information  portal  (screenshot  )  –  Website  designed  by  the   German  developer  companies    “Be:deuten”,  “Büro  -­‐  Jan  B.  Magnussen”  and  “Nets”  (source:   Interface  website)  ....................................................................................................................................................  37   Figure  5:  Example  of  the  market  potential  study  for  the  Vaxjo  Airort,  according  to  MK  Metric,   spring  2011  (source:  SBGA  Website)  ..............................................................................................................  43   Figure  6:  Maps  showing  the  results  of  the  SBGA  programme,  new  air  routes  opened  in  2012  and   2013  (Source:  SBGA  website)  ............................................................................................................................  42   Figure  7:  Map  of  the  pedelec  network  in  Rostock  combined  with  attraction  locations  in  2014,   screenshot  fron  the  Recommendations  drawn  from  the  Pilot  Project  of  the  Rostocker   Straβenbahn  AG,  page  26                          (source:  RSAG  2014)  ...........................................................................  47   Figure  8:  Picture  from  the  top,  the  cycling  friendly  strret  of  Gdansk,  with  a  view  on  the  cross-­‐ roads  (Source:  Gdansk  Municipality,  2013)  ................................................................................................  49   Figure  9:  Roadsign  produced  in  Gdansk  for  the  cycling-­‐friendly  campaign  in  Gdansk,  2013   (source:  ABC.MULTIMODAL  Website)  ..........................................................................................................  49   Figure  10:  Decision-­‐Schema  procedure  of  the  South  Baltic  Interreg  cross-­‐border  cooperation   programme  2014-­‐2020  .......................................................................................................................................  60  

1  -­‐­‐-­‐Graphs/07-­‐Cooperation-­‐and-­‐eligible-­‐areas/Interreg-­‐IV-­‐A-­‐South-­‐Baltic/   (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐16)   3  -­‐­‐01-­‐15-­‐corridors_en.htm  (accessed  2016-­‐  02-­‐ 30)   5  -­‐  http://www.south-­‐baltic-­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐10)   6  -­‐  http://www.south-­‐baltic-­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐21)  and   http://www.south-­‐baltic-­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐21)   7  -­‐  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐14)  http://www.elmos-­‐   8  -­‐­‐ 140522-­‐BicycleCapitalGdansk-­‐KrzysztofPeryczSzczepanski.pdf  (accessed  2016-­‐  03-­‐04)   9  -­‐­‐gdansk.html  (accessed  2016-­‐03-­‐04)  




Change   in   GDP   per   capita   (PPS)   in   relation   to   the   EU   average   (EU=100)   in   the   South   Baltic   Region,   2000-­‐2010,  screenshot     (source:  ESPON  2013  ,  ESPON   Atlas   -­‐   Territorial   Dimensions   of   the   Europe   2020   Strategy,  European  Union,   Luxembourg,  68  p.,  p.33)  



Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

  (Source:  BUBBICO  Rocco  L.  &    DIJKSTRA   Lewis,    “The  European  regional  Human   Development  and  Human  Poverty   Indices”,  Regional  Focus,  nr  02/2011   European  Union  Regional  Policy  -­‐ rces/docgener/focus/2011_02_hdev_hp ov_indices.pdf)  

          Net   migration   in   the   Baltic   Sea   Region  Between  2000  and  2005     (source:   EUSBSR   p.34,   Eurostat   et  NSI)  



People at-­‐risk-­‐of-­‐poverty  after  social  transfers,  2010   ”At-­‐risk-­‐of-­‐poverty   after   social   transfers   is   a   state-­‐based   indicator   of   poverty   showing   social   inequalities   between   regions   in   relation   to   the   national   income   level.   This   means   that   regional   at-­‐risk-­‐of-­‐poverty   rates   refer  to  different  income  values  in  each  country.  While  not  providing  a  European  comparison  of  income  levels   of  people  at-­‐risk-­‐of-­‐poverty,  the  map  shows  differences  in  territorial  income  disparities  across  countries.”  

  Risk  of  poverty  in  the  South  Baltic  Region,   screeshot   (source:  ESPON  2013  ,  ESPON  Atlas  -­‐   Territorial  Dimensions  of  the  Europe  2020   Strategy,  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  68   p.,  p.45)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

Map  of  the  connections  developed  under  the  Hanseatic  period  in  the  Baltic  and  North  Sea     (source:  Nicolas  Esbach  from  Pascal  Orcier  2010)  


The  Baltic  Empires  –  dominating  powers  in  the  Baltic  Region.     (source.:  Ulf  Zander,  in  “Networks,  states  and  empires  in  the  Baltic  Region”  in  MACIEJEWSKI  Witold  (eds),   The  Baltic  Sea  Region  –  Cultures,  Politics,  Societies)    


Schema of   implementation   of   the   Sustainable   Urban   Mobility   Planning   (SUMP)   from   the   European   association  ELTIS,  2010     (source:­‐process  but  also  p.  24  of  the  Manual)  


Logo from  the  campaign  in   Kalmar


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  


Explication  schema  of  the  Cycling  box,  also  known  as  the  Copenhagen  Turn     (source:  ABC.MULTIMODAL  Website­‐planning.html)    

Outlines  for  cycling  routes  in  Gdansk  (source: 6-­‐140522-­‐BicycleCapitalGdansk-­‐KrzysztofPeryczSzczepanski.pdf)      


ANNEXE III  –  REGULATIONS     è Paragraph  2  of  the  Commission  Regulation  No  2007/766/EC   “Pursuant   to   Article     88(1)   of   Regulation   (EC)   No   718/2007,   for   the   purpose   of   cross-­‐border   cooperation   between  Member  States  and  beneficiary  countries,  the  eligible  areas  for  financing  shall  be  the  NUTS  level  3   regions   or,   in   the   absence   of   NUTS   classification,   equivalent   areas,   along   land   borders   between   the   Community   and   the   beneficiary   countries   and   along   maritime   borders   between   the   Community   and   the   beneficiary   countries   separated,   as   a   general   rule,   by   a   maximum   of   150   kilometres,   taking   into   account   potential  adjustment  needed  to  ensure  the  coherence  and  continuity  of  the  cooperation  area.”    

è Thematic Objectives  detailed  by  the  Article  5  of  the  EU  Regulation  No   1301/2013,  voted  on  the  17/12/2013,  about  the  European  Regional   Development  Fund  and  on  specific  provisions  concerning  the  Investment   for  Growth  and  Jobs  goal  and  repealing  regulation  (EC)  No  1080/2006.107   Article  5:  Investment  priorities   The  ERDF  shall  support  the  following  investment  priorities  within  the  thematic  objectives  set  out  in  the   first  paragraph  of  Article  9  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013,  in  accordance  with  the  development  needs   and   growth   potential   referred   to   in   point   (a)(i)   of   Article   15(1)   of   that   Regulation   and   set   out   in   the   Partnership  Agreement:   (1)  strengthening  research,  technological  development  and  innovation  by:   (a)  enhancing   research   and   innovation   (R&I)   infrastructure   and   capacities   to   develop   R&I   excellence,   and  promoting  centres  of  competence,  in  particular  those  of  European  interest;   (b)  promoting   business   investment   in   R&I,   developing   links   and   synergies   between   enterprises,   research   and   development   centres   and   the   higher   education   sector,   in   particular   promoting   investment   in   product   and   service   development,   technology   transfer,   social   innovation,   eco-­‐ innovation,   public   service   applications,   demand   stimulation,   networking,   clusters   and   open   innovation   through   smart   specialisation,   and   supporting   technological   and   applied   research,   pilot   lines,  early  product  validation  actions,  advanced  manufacturing  capabilities  and  first  production,  in   particular  in  key  enabling  technologies  and  diffusion  of  general  purpose  technologies;    

(2) enhancing  access  to,  and  use  and  quality  of,  ICT  by:   (a)  extending   broadband   deployment   and   the   roll-­‐out   of   high-­‐speed   networks   and   supporting   the   adoption  of  emerging  technologies  and  networks  for  the  digital  economy;   (b)  developing  ICT  products  and  services,  e-­‐commerce,  and  enhancing  demand  for  ICT;   (c)  strengthening  ICT  applications  for  e-­‐government,  e-­‐learning,  e-­‐inclusion,  e-­‐culture  and  e-­‐health;    

(3) enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  SMEs  by:   (a)  promoting  entrepreneurship,  in  particular  by  facilitating  the  economic  exploitation  of  new  ideas  and  


Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union  -­‐  http://eur-­‐­‐ content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1301&from=EN    (accessed  2016-­‐04-­‐06)  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   fostering  the  creation  of  new  firms,  including  through  business  incubators;   (b)  developing   and   implementing   new   business   models   for   SMEs,   in   particular   with   regard   to   internationalisation;   (c)  supporting   the   creation   and   the   extension   of   advanced   capacities   for   product   and   service   development;   (d)  supporting   the   capacity   of   SMEs   to   grow   in   regional,   national   and   international   markets,   and   to   engage  in  innovation  processes;    

(4) supporting  the  shift  towards  a  low-­‐carbon  economy  in  all  sectors  by:   (a)  promoting  the  production  and  distribution  of  energy  derived  from  renewable  sources;   (b)   promoting  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  use  in  enterprises;   (c)  supporting   energy   efficiency,   smart   energy   management   and   renewable   energy   use   in   public   infrastructure,  including  in  public  buildings,  and  in  the  housing  sector;   (d)  developing  and  implementing  smart  distribution  systems  that  operate  at  low  and  medium  voltage   levels;   (e)  promoting  low-­‐carbon  strategies  for  all  types  of  territories,  in  particular  for  urban  areas,  including   the   promotion   of   sustainable   multimodal   urban   mobility   and   mitigation-­‐relevant   adaptation   measures;   (f)  promoting  research  and  innovation  in,  and  adoption  of,  low-­‐carbon  technologies;   (g)  promoting  the  use  of  high-­‐efficiency  co-­‐generation  of  heat  and  power  based  on  useful  heat  demand;    

(5) promoting  climate  change  adaptation,  risk  prevention  and  management  by:   (a)  supporting  investment  for  adaptation  to  climate  change,  including  ecosystem-­‐based  approaches;   (b)  promoting  investment  to  address  specific  risks,  ensuring  disaster  resilience  and  developing  disaster   management  systems;    

(6) preserving  and  protecting  the  environment  and  promoting  resource  efficiency  by:   (a)  investing  in  the  waste  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Union's  environmental  acquis  and  to   address   needs,   identified   by   the   Member   States,   for   investment   that   goes   beyond   those   requirements;   (b)  investing  in  the  water  sector  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  Union's  environmental  acquis  and  to   address   needs,   identified   by   the   Member   States,   for   investment   that   goes   beyond   those   requirements;   (c)  conserving,  protecting,  promoting  and  developing  natural  and  cultural  heritage;   (d)  protecting   and   restoring   biodiversity   and   soil   and   promoting   ecosystem   services,   including   through   Natura  2000,  and  green  infrastructure;   (e)  taking  action  to  improve  the  urban  environment,  to  revitalise  cities,  regenerate  and  decontaminate   brownfield   sites   (including   conversion   areas),   reduce   air   pollution   and   promote   noise-­‐reduction   measures;  


(f) promoting  innovative  technologies  to  improve  environmental  protection  and  resource  efficiency  in   the  waste  sector,  water  sector  and  with  regard  to  soil,  or  to  reduce  air  pollution;   (g)  supporting   industrial   transition   towards   a   resource-­‐efficient   economy,   promoting   green   growth,   eco-­‐innovation  and  environmental  performance  management  in  the  public  and  private  sectors;    

(7) promoting  sustainable  transport  and  removing  bottlenecks  in  key  network  infrastructures  by:   (a)  supporting  a  multimodal  Single  European  Transport  Area  by  investing  in  the  TEN-­‐T;   (b)  enhancing   regional   mobility   by   connecting   secondary   and   tertiary   nodes   to   TEN-­‐T   infrastructure,   including  multimodal  nodes;   (c)  developing  and  improving  environmentally-­‐friendly  (including  low-­‐noise)  and  low-­‐carbon  transport   systems,   including   inland   waterways   and   maritime   transport,   ports,   multimodal   links   and   airport   infrastructure,  in  order  to  promote  sustainable  regional  and  local  mobility;   (d)  developing  and  rehabilitating  comprehensive,  high  quality  and  interoperable  railway  systems,  and   promoting  noise-­‐reduction  measures;   (e)  improving   energy   efficiency   and   security   of   supply   through   the   development   of   smart   energy   distribution,   storage   and   transmission   systems   and   through   the   integration   of   distributed   generation  from  renewable  sources;    

(8) promoting  sustainable  and  quality  employment  and  supporting  labour  mobility  by:   (a)  supporting   the   development   of   business   incubators   and   investment   support   for   self-­‐employment,   micro-­‐enterprises  and  business  creation;   (b)  supporting  employment-­‐friendly  growth  through  the  development  of  endogenous  potential  as  part   of   a   territorial   strategy   for   specific   areas,   including   the   conversion   of   declining   industrial   regions   and  enhancement  of  accessibility  to,  and  development  of,  specific  natural  and  cultural  resources;   (c)  supporting  local  development  initiatives  and  aid  for  structures  providing  neighbourhood  services  to   create   jobs,   where   such   actions   are   outside   the   scope   of   Regulation   (EU)   No   1304/2013   of   the   European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  (10);   (d)   investing  in  infrastructure  for  employment  services;    

(9) promoting  social  inclusion,  combating  poverty  and  any  discrimination,  by:   (a)  investing   in   health   and   social   infrastructure   which   contributes   to   national,   regional   and   local   development,   reducing   inequalities   in   terms   of   health   status,   promoting   social   inclusion   through   improved  access  to  social,  cultural  and  recreational  services  and  the  transition  from  institutional  to   community-­‐based  services;   (b)  providing  support  for  physical,  economic  and  social  regeneration  of  deprived  communities  in  urban   and  rural  areas;   (c)  

providing support  for  social  enterprises;  

(d) undertaking  investment  in  the  context  of  community-­‐led  local  development  strategies;    

(10) investing  in  education,  training  and  vocational  training  for  skills  and  lifelong  learning  by  developing   education  and  training  infrastructure;  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   (11)  enhancing   institutional   capacity   of   public   authorities   and   stakeholders   and   efficient   public   administration   through   actions   to   strengthen   the   institutional   capacity   and   the   efficiency   of   public   administrations   and   public   services   related   to   the   implementation   of   the   ERDF,   and   in   support   of   actions   under   the   ESF   to   strengthen   the   institutional   capacity   and   the   efficiency   of   public   administration.  


ANNEXE IV  –  INTERVIEWS     NOTES  ABOUT  THE  INTERVIEW  WITH  ROBERT  MAZURKIEWICZ  (2016-­‐03-­‐22)     Questions   about   the   role   of   SB   Programme   in   EU   transport   policy   in   the   Baltic   Region   –   Interreg-­‐A  approach   “Definitely   we   are   not   competing   because   we   are   working   on   a   different   scale,   and   the   amount   of   resources  dedicated,  this  is  something  you  cannot  even  compare,  because  with  these  TEN-­‐T  programme,   or  Marco  Polo...  they  are  talking  about  billions  and  we  are  talking  about  let’s  say  millions  euro.  So  this  is   something  completely  different”   “Also   the   subject   is   different   because   they   are   talking   about   TEN-­‐T   corridors,   European   connections,   networks   in   general”   -­‐   No   one   would   like   to   invest   in   areas   where   they   don’t   have   interest,   that’s   why   there   is   this   TEN-­‐T   programme   that   is   dealing   with   some   issues   where   there   are   not   clear   legislative   borders.”   “We  know  that  we  will  not  save  the  world  and  we  will  not  improve  connectivity  in  the  South  Baltic  Region   because  it’s  impossible  with  such  a  small  budget  BUT  we  can  contribute  to  that”  -­‐  “We  are  developing  new   local  solution,  but  then  they  will  contribute  to  the  overall  level”  -­‐  16  million  Euros  in  transport  major   Our  projects  should  focus  on  services  for  cargo,  ports,  and  passengers,  to  improve  the  overall  situation.  -­‐   The  Baltic  Region  Programme  is  more  focused  on  corridor  or  TEN-­‐T  approach   Our  approach  is  bottom-­‐up  so  we  are  not  imposing  any  idea  to  the  projects   “We  (all  programmes)  are  more  complementary  elements.  For  example  on  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  TEN-­‐T  or   Interreg   Baltic   will   develop   corridors,   overall   strategies,   new   cargo   routes   for   example.   But   us,   we   will   develop  some  concrete  solutions  for  one  connection,  for  example  services  for  containers  or  ro-­‐ro  ferries   or  whatever.”   The  cross-­‐border  cooperation   Actions  that  member  states  and  regions  would  not  develop,  innovation,  risks  -­‐>  “This  is  our  mantra,  our   point   of   departure:   the   outcomes   of   the   projects   should   be   the   highlighting   of   the   cross-­‐border   cooperation  value.   Innovation  through  cross-­‐border  cooperation.  “They  should  simply  say  that  the  way  of  work  is  designed   from   cooperation,   they   have   to   prove   that   the   cooperation   must   be   an   added   value   for   the   concept,   to   develop  the  common  interest  of  stakeholders.”   The   cross-­‐border   cooperation   can   be   considered   as   a   risk,   because   all   actors   have   to   find   the   same   added-­‐ value   and   the   same   interest   in   cooperating   together.   “You   have   to   implement   a   methodology   that   is   available  for  all  partners”   “Some  of  them  know  what  they  should  do,  have  great  ideas  for  their  city,  for  their  port  or  whatever,  and   they  are  just  seeking  the  ERDF  money  to  have  funds  for  their  idea”   Innovation   -­‐>   “We   developed   during   many   years   those   separate   bicycle   roads,   but   after   study   trips   and   cooperation,   we   saw   that   this   is   not   the   best   way!   Car   drivers   have   to   realise   also   that   cyclists   are   also   rightfully  users  of  the  road!”  “So  cooperation  shows  that  we  may  simply  reconsider  our  approach”.   “It’s  really  long  ongoing  process  of  changing  minds,  so  definitely,  one  project  will  not  solve  the  issue”  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme     Programme  construction  –  stakeholders  interests   “We   asked   them,   long   time   ago   to   express   their   needs   according   to   the   TO   proposed   by   the   EU   Commission,   and   ranking   TO   on   a   scale   from   1   to   5”   “But   there   were   disparities   in   the   willing   of   the   countries:   for   example   Denmark   and   Sweden   they   were   really   PUSHING   FOR   THE   labour   market   and   mobility  because  they  have  insufficient  number  of  employees  to  some  sectors,  but  Poland  and  Lithuania   they   said   ‘no   because   we   want   to   avoid   this   brain   drain’,   even   though   it   was   one   of   the   most   cross-­‐border   element  in  the  programme”   “It  was  quite  complex  and  it  took  us  one  year  to  establish  common  objectives”   “For   the   previous   one,   it   was   more   or   less   the   same   but   the   difference   was   that   you   could   supported   projects  in  all  thematic,  all  projects  could  fit  to  the  programme,  but  actually  there  were  so  many  projects   in  the  previous  one  that  it  was  quite  easier  10  years  ago  because  we  were  covering  most  of  the  subjects”   “The   EU   commission   delivers   some   guidelines,   some   priorities   in   strategic   documents,   and   then   they   establish  those  thematic  objectives.  And  then  each  programme  has  to  choose  4  TO  but  then,  there  were  big   discussions   and   so   on...   So   it   was   established   that   80%   should   be   allocated   to   the   4   main   TO   and   last   20%   for  the  5th  one,  for  us  it’s  2  or  3%  for  the  cooperation  capacity  objective.”   “At  the  end  it’s  always  a  kind  of  compromise”   “Previously,  the  programmes  had  to  select  their  objectives  by  themselves,  justifying  their  goals.  But  what   most  of  the  programmes  did:  they  simply  chose  everything  because  of  the  interest,  especially  those  ones   with   more   than   2   countries.   So   the   thing   was   simply   to   develop   your   own   strategy   (on   several   fields   or   concentrating  on  one  topic...)  and  then,  it  has  to  be  approved  by  the  EU  Commission.”     The  multi-­‐level  governance   “The   organisation   doesn’t   change   much   between   Interreg   IV   and   V.   The   thing   is   that   the   managing   authority   will   be   responsible   from   the   legal   point   of   view   for   all   decisions,   and   they   will   report   to   the   European   commission   all   the   activities   and   decisions.   However   they   are   not   independent   in   their   decision   because   there   is   the   Monitoring   Committee,   with   members   from   all   the   countries.   And   they   are   taking   the   decisions  and  deciding  the  direction  of  the  programme,  the  call  launch,  the  majors,  and  so  on...”   Programme  construction  made  by  a  Joint  Programme  Committee  very  similar  from  the  MC.   “But   the   monitoring   committee   was   deciding   on   technical   majors:   what   subjects   should   be   supported,   what   kind   of   resources   should   be   allocated,   and   then   commonly   approved,   okay   this   will   be   our   programme.  And  then,  MA  submitted  the  project  to  EU  Commission  approval,  MC  was  informed...”   “AS  secretariat,  we  are  supporting  both  MA  and  MC.  In  some  programmes,  secretariats  are  part  of  the  MA,   because  it’s  like  they  are...  Now  we  are  much  more  dependant  from  the  MA  because  of  political  reasons...”   “The  MC  is  not  legally  binding.  They  are  really  important  but  they  do  not  exist  from  the  legal  point  of  view.   The  MA  can  say  no  in  case  of  legal  incoherence  of  MC  decision.  But  theoretically  such  problem  should  not   appear.  But  of  course  in  practice...”   “We   help   the   MC   in   finding   some   solutions   to   some   problems,   proposing   new   ideas,   because   they   don’t   have  all  means  (knowledge,  time,  tools)  to  create  decisions.  But  of  course  they  can  propose  solutions”    


Composition of  the  MC   “Poland  have  representatives  who  are  at  the  same  time  in  the  MC  and  the  MA,  so  when  they  are  in  the  MC,   we  have  to  explain  them  their  limits,  their  role  and  what  they  represent  in  each  committee.”   “The  MA  has  to  respect  internal  rules,  and  sometimes  they  would  like  to  smuggle  to  be  in  line  with  these   rules,  of  course  this  is  obvious.  But  formally,  MA  has  no  voice  in  the  MC,  they  should  be  independent,  but   in   the   practices,   for   example   Poland   votes   like   the   MA   want   them   to   vote.   But   in   practice,   it’s   fine.   Because   in  the  MC,  if  one  delegation  disagrees,  then  the  decision  is  cancelled  and  the  MA  has  to  respect  this  choice.   And  so  far  it  worked  well  because  it  was  based  on  the  common  sense.”   “In   the   previous   programme   period,   there   was   this   slight   difference   that   there   was   the   Steering   Committee,  but  actually  it  was  the  same  members  as  in  the  MC,  they  were  only  responsible  for  selecting   projects,   but   the   MC   was   deciding   the   overall   direction   of   the   programme,   on   the   scope   of   the   call   for   example,  or  approving  reports,  sending  to  the  MA...   But  the  practice  showed  that  90%  of  people  were  the  same  and  sometimes  they  were  confused  ‘where  we   are’.  And  from  the  procedure  point  of  view  it  was  very  difficult  for  us.  We  recommended  several  projects   to   be   approved   but   provided   that   MC   will   decide   that   some   resources   are   shifted   from   one   measure   to   another,  because  at  the  later  stage  of  the  programme  some  objectives  were  fulfilled  and  some  others  were   lacking   money.   But   shifting   money   form   a   measure   to   another   was   the   decision   of   the   MC,   while   it   was   asked  by  the  SC.  So  this  was  like  concrete  problem  that  should  be  solved  by  the  same  people,  having  the   same  picture  of  the  problem.”   “We   are   not   able   to   be   everywhere.   So   we   established   contact   points   in   each   region   which   would   have   the   main  roles  to  support  and  inform  beneficiaries  at  the  first  stage  of  the  programme.  And  then  at  the  later   stage  they  were  providing  technical  support  for  implementation.  And  at  the  end,  they  had  to  disseminate   results.”   “When   the   project   is   approved,   it   is   managed   only   by   the   lead   beneficiary.   They   are   responsible   for   the   report,   the   internal   structure,   the   implementation,   and   reporting   their   work   to   ask   for   reimbursement.   Then   we   are   checking   if   everything   is   according   to   the   scheduled   and   the   contract.   But   if   they   have   problems,  they  are  approaching  us.  If  the  problems  are  important,  the  MC  is  taking  the  decision  in  2  weeks   after  a  letter  from  the  JTS.  But  they  can  always  approach  us.     Main  problems  of  the  projects   Many  problems...  Technical  problems,  and  content  issues   “For  the  technical  issue,  the  partners  simply  do  not  agree  about  how  to  deal  with  the  projects  and  internal   issues.  But  of  course,  this  is  our  task  to  avoid  such  situation  and  keep  the  coherence  between  partners,  we   can  simply  invite  them  to  the  meetings,  doing  discussions...”   “And   then   the   other   problems   can   be   connected   to   the   content.   So   they   are   developing   something,   but   actually,   they   realise   that   there   is   no   need   for   that.   And   this   is   really   huge   problem,   and   of   course   we   noticed   it   several   times,   so   now   they   have   to   prove   since   the   very   beginning   the   need   for   their   project.   Because  if  not,  they  are  working,  preparing  some  reports,  and  everything  but  nothing  will  be  reused.  For   example,   they   would   like   to   develop   some   new   technologies,   and   then,   what   if   the   research   part   will   provide  that  there  is  no  need.  We  had  2  or  3  such  cases,  they  expected  that  the  reports  would  say  yes.”   “We  should  more  concentrate  on  the  real  tools,  which  would  be  used  by  someone  at  the  end,  because  it   was  lacking  on  the  previous  programme.”  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

EMAIL INTERVIEWS  WITH  KNOWLEDGE  AGENTS  AND  OTHER  PROGRAMME  STAKEHOLDERS   These  interviews  have  been  realised  in  the  frame  of  the  internship,  meanwhile  I   had   to   get   in   touch   with   agents   from   the   projects   under   the   Interreg   IV   2007-­‐2013.   This   contains  information  about  date  of  email  and  nouns  of  the  proxies,  and  the  strict  content   of  information  exchange  about  the  projects.   From:  Maciej  Dziadosz     Sent:  Monday,  February  15,  2016  2:31  PM   To:  'Marta  Kołodziej'   Subject:  FW:  Few  questions  about  the  results  of  SBGA  project  –  Interreg   ___________________________________________________________________________     -­‐  Yes,  the  SBGA  Market  potential  analysis  helped  these  new  partnerships.  This  material  is  used  and   presented  on  meetings  with  airlines  during  talks  on  launching  new  connections.  We  are  still  launching   marketing  campaigns  to  do  promotion  work  for  the  Szczecin  airport.   -­‐  The  Management  of  Szczecin  Airport  uses  presentation  which  is  based  on  material  „Moderation  and   elaboration  of  PSO  application  guide  and  study  on  region  al  economic  justification”  on  meetings  with   airlines  during  talks  on  launching  new  connections,  especially  when  it  comes  to  connection  to   Copenhagen.   The  Szczecin  Airport  hasn’t  received  any  demands  from  other  Airport  that  wanted  to  have  some   information  concerning  The  SBGA  methodology.     Maciej  Dziadosz   Marta  Kołodziej   Specjalista  ds.  obsługi  administracyjnej   Portu  Lotniczego   Szczecin-­‐Goleniów  Sp.  zo.o.    

From:  Steffen  Nozon   Sent:  Wednesday,  February  10,  2016  5:13  PM   To:  Elsa  Bergery   Subject:  RE:  Antw:  Few  questions  about  ABC.MULTIMODAL  project   _______________________________________________________________________     Concerning  the  SUMP  (Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plan)   Did  SUMP  instructions  inspire  Rostock  to  implement  a  cycling-­‐friendly  plan?   We  started  our  work  in  abc  with  a  discussion  &  comparison  of  different  planning  approaches    and  the   result  was  a  Manual  for  a  cycling  master  plan  (see   Here  we  also  talked  about  the  SUMP  approach.  Although  SUMP  was  not  a  main  topic  within  abc-­‐project     the  SUMP  instructions  inspire  in  fact  Rostock  and  other  abc-­‐partners  to  implement  a  cycling-­‐friendly  plan   in  different  ways,  for  example  in  case  of  citizens  participation.       Did  the  implementation  of  the  abc.multimodal  project  in  Rostock  include  a  participatory  approach   (citizens,  actors,  NGOs…)?   Implementation  of  the  abc-­‐project  in  Rostock  includes  a  participatory  approach  in  different  ways.  Only   some  examples:   Citizen  participation  for  a  new  cycle  highway  (see:   a  target  group  analysis  via  a  survey  (see:  the  campaign  “Rostock  steigt  auf”   (“Rostock  gets  on  bicycle”)  (see:­‐rostock.html)  events  like  the   yearly  climate  action  day  (see:­‐rostock.html)  repeated  information   and  discussion  about  abc-­‐implementation  with  stakeholders  during  the  Rostocker  Fahrradforum.         Have  you  used  some  tools  from  SUMP,  like  for  example  the  “SUMP  Self-­‐Assessment  Tool”  that   measures  the  effects  of  the  new  cycling  facilities?  


We did  not  use  the  SUMP  Self-­‐Assessment  Tool  specially,  but  we  did  a  lot  of  research  on  different  methods   for  successful  campaigning,  evaluation  of  implemented  actions  a.s.o.  and  developed  within  the  abc-­‐ consortium  different  kinds  of  concepts  and  handbooks.    The  evaluation  of  implemented  actions  has  been   carried  out  by  each  city  partner.  They  make  use  of  the  common  evaluation  method  with  surveys,  counting   cyclists  before  and  after,  using  the  data  from  the  cycle  monitor.  The  evaluation  of  the  process  and  the   results  contribute  to  a  common  guideline  on  elaboration  of  master  plans  to  integrate  cycling  into   multimodal  transport  systems.     (see:­‐for-­‐evaluation.html)       As  a  member  of  the  Union  of  the  Baltic  Cities,  do  you  take  part  in  the  “Sustainable  Cities   Commission”  of  the  UBC?  Did  it  help  the  abc.multimodal  project  or  vice  versa?   We  had  different  cooperation  with  the  UBC.  The  Commission  on  transport  has  been  an  assoc.  partner   within  the  abc-­‐project.  We´d  contribute  some  articles  for  the  UBC  bulletin  about  abc.  We  took  part  in  the   Joint  Conference  of  UBC  commissions  on  transport  and  sustainable  cities  on  23-­‐24  Oct  2014  in  Gdynia  and   contribute  to  the  topic  SUMP  measures  in  the  South  Baltic  Region  with  a  presentation  about  a  “Master   plan  for  a  cycling  friendly  city”.  So  UBC  helped  the  abc.multimodal  project  and  vice  versa.     Concerning  the  Charter  of  Brussels:  it  aims  “a  target  of  at  least  15%  for  the  share  of  cycling  in  the   modal  split  of  trips  for  the  year  2020  and  of  further  growth  if  this  target  already  is  achieved”  and  “a   target  of  -­‐50  %  for  cyclists  running  the  risk  of  having  a  fatal  accident  for  the  year  2020”.   Could  it  be  interesting  for  a  city  like  Rostock  to  sign  this  Charter?         Rostock  achieved  in  the  last  years  a  position  of  an  advanced  cycling  city.  With  its    Cycling  promotion   programme  (2006)  the  Hanseatic  City  of  Rostock  admits  to  be  a  cycling  friendly  city,  to  rise  the  share  of   cycling  in  modal  split  until  2020  to  20  %  and  to  reduce  the  number  of  fatal  accidents.  So  signing  an   additional  charta  is  not  essential  but  implementing  and  working  hard  to  meet  the  targets.       Do  you  consider  these  targets  reachable?  If  not,  what  share  of  cycling  in  the  modal  split  of  trips  do   you  plan  for  2020?   see    above      What  percentage  of  reduction  of  the  risk  do  you  plan?   Reducing  the  number  of  severe  cycling  accidents  (from  2006)  until  2013  by  at  least  50%.  We  didn´t  reach   this  goal  until  now,  but  we  could  uncouple  the  number  of  cycling  accidents  from  the  rising  number  of   cycling  traffic  in  Rostock.     Concerning  other  bicycle  policies  in  Rostock:  Do  you  consider  that  the  Integrated  Transport   Concept  (IGVK  from  1998),  and  the  following  Mobility  Plan  Future,  have  been  rather   complementary/compatible  or  duplicating  with  abc.multimodal?   The  IGVK  and  the  Mobility  plan  Future  are  master  plans  for  all  kinds  of  transport  for  Rostock,  while   abc.multimodal  focussed  on  cycling  and  multimodality.    Therefore  abc  has  been  rather  complementary   with  the  mentioned  master  plans.  In  some  areas  abc  contributes  to  a  more  detailed  and  coherent  cycling   concept  (as  a  part  of  the  master  plan  Mobility  plan  Future),  for  example  with  the  concept  for  a  new  cycle   highway  (see:,  but  also  with  the  survey  (target  group   analysis),  the  feasibility  study  for  a  bike  station  at  the  main  station,  campaigns,  evaluation,  the  cycling   counting  facilities  a.s.o.       Abc.multimodal  in  Rostock   What  new  cycling-­‐friendly  realisations  in  Rostock  are  attributable  to  abc.multimodal?   If  you  mean  during  the  abc-­‐project  ,  YES  a  lot:     see  above  and  look  at  the  Implementation  book  (comprehensive  compilation  of  all  the  abc-­‐outputs)  which   covers  all  activities  and  investments  done  by  the  abc-­‐partners  (see­‐book.html)   If  you  mean  after  the  finalisation  of  the  abc-­‐project?  YES,  some:     like  an  additional  cycling  monitor  financed  by  the  city  of  Rostock,     useful  city  furnitures  for  cyclists  (see    http://www.radregion-­‐­‐ stadtmobiliar/),  the  hold  up  hoops  (in  front  of  traffic  lights)  and  the  air  pump  were  inspired  by  the  abc-­‐ study  trips  to  Copenhagen  and  Malmö  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   with  the  campaign  “Rostocker  Aufsteiger”  in  2015  (see  http://www.radregion-­‐­‐aufsteiger/)  we  continued  the  sustainable  campaign  “Rostock  steigt  auf”   (“Rostock  gets  on  the  bicycle”)     Is  the  city  expecting  a  new  growth  of  cycling  traffic  for  the  future?   Yes,  we  expect  a  further  growth  between  20  –  25  %  of  the  share  of  cycling  in  modal  split  until  2030.     Could  we  consider  that  abc.multimodal  has  been  a  booster  for  a  cycling-­‐friendly  policy  in  Rostock?   A  clear  YES.  The  abc-­‐project  and  the  exchange  with  our  partners  in  the  SB-­‐Region  gave  us  a  lot  of   inspiration  and  has  been  a  booster  for  the  awareness  of  Rostock  as  a  cycling  friendly  city.  We  had  a  lot  of   requests  to  share  our  experiences  at  regional  meetings  and  also  national  conferences.  Rostock  and  the   federal  state  of  Mecklenburg-­‐Western  Pomerania  hosted  in  Nov  2015  the  “Fahrradkommunalkonferenz”   (the  biggest  national  conference  for  cycling  experts  from  German  municipalities  with  200  participants,   see:  For  its  comprehensive  service  approach   Rostock  belongs  to  the  3  nominated  of  the  “German  Cycling  Award  2016”  in  the  category  “service”  (see   http://www.der-­‐deutsche-­‐­‐der-­‐woche.html).       Steffen  Nozon   Hansestadt  Rostock,     c/o  Senator  für  Bau  und  Umwelt    -­‐  Mobilitätskoordinator  

  From:  Krzysztof  Perycz-­‐Szczepański     Sent:  Wednesday,  February  10,  2016  10:13  AM   To:  Elsa  Bergery   Subject:  Re:  Few  questions  about  ABC.MULTIMODAL  project   ___________________________________________________________________     1.  Concerning  the  SUMP  (Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plan)   o  Did  SUMP  instructions  inspire  Gdansk  to  implement  a  bicycle-­‐friendly  plan?   SUMP  has  not  been  yet  created  for  Gdańsk.  However  Gdańsk  has  launched  the  public  consultation  process   in  order  to  ask  the  citizens  how  should  the  cycling  routes  network  look  like  in  the  city.  There  were  19   workshops  organized  in  different  districts  resulting  in  640  applications  submitted.  The  outcome  of  this   document  is  called  STeR  (Cycling  Routes  Network  for  Gdansk)  which  is  being  currently  implemented.   •  Did  the  implementation  of  the  abc.multimodal  project  in  Gdansk  include  a  participatory   approach  (citizens,  actors,  NGOs…)?   Each  city  within  the  project  had  a  defined  target  group.  In  Gdansk  we  were  targeting  journalists.  The   journalists  were  involved  in  consultation  process  of  promotional  campaigns  organized  in  the  framework   of  the  abc.multimodal.  The  cooperation  also  resulted  in  higher  interest  of  the  press  in  abc.multimodal   outcomes.   •  Have  you  used  some  tools  from  SUMP,  like  for  example  the  “SUMP  Self-­‐Assessment  Tool”  that   measures  the  effects  of  the  new  cycling  facilities?   None  of  the  SUMP  tools  were  used  in  order  to  measure  the  project  outcomes.     •  As  a  member  of  the  Union  of  the  Baltic  Cities,  do  you  take  part  in  the  “Sustainable  Cities   Commission”  of  the  UBC?  Did  it  help  the  abc.multimodal  project?   The  implementation  of  the  abc.multimodal  was  not  linked  to  Gdańsk`s  membership  in  UBC.   •  Gdynia  is  a  follower  city  of  the  CH4LLENGE  project  from  SUMP:  did  it  help  in  the  implementation   of  the  abc.multimodal  project  in  the  Tricity  Region  of  Gdansk?   The  abc.multimodal  project  was  territorially  limited  to  Gdańsk  area.  Due  to  project`s  character  it  was  not   influenced  by  CH4LLENGE.     2.  Concerning  the  Charter  of  Brussels  that  Gdansk  signed:  it  aims  “a  target  of  at  least  15%  for  the   share  of  cycling  in  the  modal  split  of  trips  for  the  year  2020  and  of  further  growth  if  this  target   already  is  achieved”  and  “a  target  of  -­‐50  %  for  cyclists  running  the  risk  of  having  a  fatal  accident   for  the  year  2020”.   o  Do  you  consider  these  targets  reachable?  If  not,  what  share  of  cycling  in  the  modal  split  of  trips  


do you  plan  for  2020?     Regarding  the  Charter  of  Brussels  provisions  Gdansk  already  fulfilled  4  out  of  5  goals.   •  the  cycling  traffic  grown  over  past  3  years  over  50%  and  the  number  of  accidents  remained  unchanged.   •  Gdansk  has  launched  a  very  successful  cycling  promotion  programs:   o  “Rowerowy  Maj”  (Cycling  May)  directed  to  school  children  –  participated  by  11  000  pupils  in  2015   o  “Bike  to  work”  –  participated  by  over  80  companies   •  The  dialog  about  cycling  development  has  been  institutionalized  –  the  Mayor  appointed  the  advisory   board  for  mobility  and  transport  composed  of  representatives  of  NGO`s,  cycling  advocacy  organizations,   representatives  of  universities,  Gdansk`s  companies  and  transport  experts.   We  consider  the  target  of  15%  of  cycling  share  in  the  modal  structure  reachable  providing  the  growth   trend  remains  unchanged  (over  50  percent  growth  of  cycling  in  last  3  years,  8%  of  cycling  share  in  modal   split  –  in  summer  months).   •  What  percentage  of  reduction  of  the  risk  do  you  plan?   It  is  quite  difficult  to  say  as  the  cycling  traffic  constantly  grows  but  the  number  of  fatalities  remains   unchanged,  so  in  total  the  share  of  fatalities  drops.     3.  Abc.multimodal  in  Gdansk:   o  Gdansk  is  a  member  city  of  the  CIVITAS  MIMOSA  project:  Did  it  help  the  abc.multimodal  project   and  vice  versa?   The  Civitas  Mimosa  project  was  prior  to  abc.multiodal.  The  implementation  of  MIMOSA  definitely  gave   much  experience  in  successful  project  implementation,  organization  of  social  campaigns  and  promotion  of   the  project`s  outcomes.     •  In  the  city,  what  is  attributable  to  the  abc.multimodality  project?   Thanks  to  abc.multimodal  project  Gdańsk  has  started  the  automatic  bicycle  counting  system.  The  first  bike   monitor  in  Gdańsk  was  purchased  and  installed  within  the  project.     Also  the  “First  Cycling  Friendly  Street  in  Poland”  project  was  lunched  within  the  abc.multimodal  project.   Moreover  the  innovative  solutions  applied  in  the  “First  cycling  friendly  street  in  Poland”  project  within  the   abc.multimodal  project  were  adopted  to  Polish  legal  regulations  by  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and   Development  as  a  standard  solutions  for  Polish  cities.     Also  Overtake  Safely  signs  are  accustomed  with  the  abc.multimodal  in  Gdansk.     •  In  2014,  45  companies  were  participating  to  the  campaign  “bike  to  work”:  has  this  number   increased  so  far?   •  Yes,  last  year  campaign  gathered  over  80  companies.   •  At  the  same  time,  107  informative  road  signs  have  been  installed:  has  this  number  evolved?   No,  the  number  of  signs  was  carefully  planned  at  the  beginning,  so  there  was  no  need  for  additional  signs.   •  As  polish  cities  are  still  lower  than  the  European  cycling  average,  is  there  still  a  political  will  to  go   further?   Generally  there  is  a  strong  political  will  for  development  of  cycling.  However  not  all  Polish  cities  adopt   right  instruments  for  cycling  promotion  (for  example:  opening  the  public  bike  system  without  creating  the   adequate  bike  infrastructure).  In  2010  Gdansk  went  through  the  BYPAD  audit  in  order  to  examine  its   cycling  policy.  All  the  post-­‐audit  recommendations  were  carefully  analysed  and  included  to  revised   Gdansk`s  cycling  policy  in  order  to  create  right  conditions  for  cycling  growth.   The  political  will  of  Polish  cities  was  also  reflected  last  year  during  the  European  Cycling  Challenge   (  were  three  first  places  were  taken  by  Polish  cities.     4.  Gdansk  is  considered  as  the  most  cycling-­‐friendly  city  in  Poland,  and  a  model  to  follow  for  other   Polish  cities  and  generally  speaking  for  every  post-­‐soviet  city.  Also,  one  of  the  goals  of   abc.multimodal  project  is  to  ripple  the  experience  to  other  cities  in  the  country.  Do  you  know  if  any   cooperation  with  other  polish  cities  has  been  launched  since  the  implementation  of   abc.multimodal  in  Gdansk,  in  the  aim  of  sharing  experience  and  skills?   Yes,  the  innovative  solutions  applied  in  the  “First  cycling  friendly  street  in  Poland”  project  within  the   abc.multimodal  project  were  adopted  to  Polish  legal  regulations  by  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and   Development  as  a  standard  solutions  for  Polish  cities.  What  is  more  some  of  the  innovations  developed   within  the  project  (Overtake  Safely  signs)  has  already  been  adopted  by  the  other  cities  in  Poland.  Since   2010  Gdansk  has  organized  the  Active  Mobility  Congress  (  (the   biggest  event  in  Central  Europe  promoting  active  mobility  )  which  was  also  directed  to  the   representatives  of  cities  in  order  to  disseminate  knowledge  and  present  best  practice  examples  of  urban   cycling  development  from  all  over  the  world.  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   •  How  such  a  network  of  cycling-­‐friendly  cities  could  be  built  on  the  polish  scale?     In  Polish  scale  it  could  be  a  network  of  cities  lobbing  for  adequate  changes  in  national  low,  facilitating   development  of  sustainable  modes  of  transport  including  cycling.  When  it  comes  to  best  practice  examples   Poland  scale  is  too  small  for  creating  such  a  network  and  European  scale  is  more  suitable.   •  Has  there  been  any  workshop  or  conferences  in  Poland  in  favour  of  cycling  facilities,  sustainable   transports,  or  multimodality  systems?   Yes,  The  Active  Mobility  Congress  is  the  biggest  Central  Europe`s  event  promoting  sustainable   development  of  urban  transport.  Each  year  the  Congress  gathers  experts  in  field  of  sustainable  mobility,   transport  planners,  spatial  planers,  politicians  and  stakeholders  in  different  areas  related  to  mobility.   During  the  congress  the  participants  are  given  the  opportunity  to  listen  to  numerous  presentation,   exchange  best  precise  examples  and  take  part  in  debates  and  workshops  concerning  mobility.   •  How  did  Gdansk  influence  other  cities?  Which  realisations  are  the  most  valuable,  the  most  copied   (separate  bike  lanes,  bike  boxes,  dedicated  cycling  traffic  lights,  special  road  signs...)?   The  innovative  solutions  applied  in  the  “First  cycling  friendly  street  in  Poland”  project  within  the   abc.multimodal  project  were  adopted  to  Polish  legal  regulations  by  the  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and   Development  as  a  standard  solutions  for  Polish  cities.     Additionally,  the  “Overtake  Safely”  signs  were  received  very  warmly  by  other  Polish  cities  and  5  of  them   (Tczew,  Słupsk,  Gdynia,  Olsztyn  and  Kielce)  expressed  their  will  to  install  the  signs  too.   Currently  the  most  influencing  is  the  “Cycling  May”  campaign  directed  to  school  children.  Last  year  the   campaign  was  participated  by  11  000  children,  and  this  year  the  action  will  be  launched  in  6  Polish  cities.   (the  campaign  was  executed  outside  of  the  abc.multimodal  project).     URZĄD  MIEJSKI  W  GDAŃSKU    -­‐Wydział  Gospodarki  Komunalnej     Krzysztof  Perycz-­‐Szczepański    -­‐  Inspektor  -­‐  

  From:  Wallin  Pär   Sent:  Wednesday,  February  03,  2016  5:06  PM   To:  Elsa  Bergery   Subject:  SV:  Few  questions  about  current  impacts  of  the  ELMOS  project   _______________________________________________________________________________     -­‐              How  has  evolve  the  number  of  bicycle  riders  in  Växjö  since  the  implementation  of  the  ELMOS   project?  Växjö  started  up  with  counting  all  cycling  passing  in  2013  at  7  different  places  in  the  city.    The   number  has  decreased  with  3%  between  2013-­‐2015.  But  there  are  some  problems  with  one  signpost.  And   the  result  might  be  instead  +  2%.­‐/Invanare/Trafik-­‐-­‐samhallsplaner/Cykla-­‐i-­‐ Vaxjo/Cykling-­‐i-­‐Vaxjo/  

We  have  followed  up  the  sale  figures  of  pedelec  in  the  program  and  afterword’s.           -­‐              Is  the  secured  bicycle  rack  fully  employed?  Yes  it  is  fully  employed.  Even  with  more  than   100%    How  does  it  work  for  the  users  (linked  with  the  public  transport  card,  free-­‐


access,subscription...)? They  users  have  an  ordinary  public  transport  card  and  get  access  to  the   pedelec/cycling  garage  by  this  ordinary  card.     About  e-­‐carpooling:   -­‐              How  many  e-­‐cars  are  there?  One  e-­‐car  How  are  the  e-­‐cars  stations  distributed  in  the  city?     -­‐              How  is  evolving  the  flow  of  e-­‐cars  users  since  the  ELMOS  project?  A  private  company  Sunfleet   -­‐              To  what  extend  the  e-­‐cars  network  is  connected  to  the  public  transport  network?  Do   multimodal  tickets  exist  (public  transports,  e-­‐cars,  biking  facilities...)?  The  E-­‐car  is  station  at  the   travelcenter.     -­‐              What  is  the  funding  plan  of  the  e-­‐carpooling  system?  Which  actors  are  involved?  A  private   company  Sunfleet   -­‐              What  is  the  area  of  the  e-­‐carpool  use?  Are  surrounding  towns  interested  in  charging  stations   for  electric  cars?  Some  cities  are  interested     About  cooperation:   -­‐              Do  you  have  any  feedbacks  from  the  surrounding  municipalities?  Could  they  be  interested  in   the  implementation  of  such  installations?  Some  cities  are  interested  in  the  pedelct  garage  and  at  least   four  cities  have  built  those.     -­‐              Do  you  have  some  kind  of  agreements  with  surrounding  municipalities  to  extend  the  network   of  intermodality?   -­‐              Did  you  have  any  questions/investigations  from  other  cities  (In  Sweden,  in  the  South-­‐Baltic   area  or  in  Europe)  that  could  be  interested  in  implementing  an  electric  mobility  network  (sharing   knowledge,  visits...)?  some  visit  from  the  Energy  cities  organisation     Further  questions:   -­‐              30  pedelecs  have  been  hired  for  free  among  the  population  during  4  weeks  in  2012.  3-­‐4  weeks   during  2013-­‐14,  totalt  500  persons  hired  pedelecs,  10%  bought  one,  in  total  5000  persons  test  pedelecs.   What  became  those  e-­‐bikes?  Is  the  city  still  non-­‐interested  in  the  classic  rental  systems  of  e-­‐bikes?   The  municipal  has  lend  out  pedelecs  on  long  turn  to  different  department  in  the  municipal.   -­‐              The  number  of  pedelecs  increased  significantly  in  4  years  (813%  in  2014),  while  the  number   of  bikers  in  general  didn’t  follow  the  same  growth:  could  we  explain  this  phenomenon  by  saying   that  the  traditional  bikers  substituted  their  classic  bikes  with  a  pedelec?  Have  non-­‐traditional   bikers  bought  a  pedelec  because  they  were  not  able  to  rise  a  classic  bike  before?  The  sales  of   pedelecs  is  still  on  a  very  low  level.  370  numbers.  While  ordinary  bike  sales  in  Växjö  could  be  a  round   3000  bikes  or  more.  I  don’t  have  that  figures.  But  one  bike  shop  that  sell  a  lot  pedelecs  says  that  between   5-­‐10  %  of  the  total  bike  sell  is  pedelecs.  tWe  don’t  know  how  bought  pedelecs.  An  a  survey  6  months  after   the  testperiod  1/3  says  that  they  used  their  ordinary  bike  more  often.   -­‐              Which  bicycle-­‐friendly  installations  can  be  attributed  to  the  ELMOS  project  (e.g.  cycling  routes,   bike  boxes...)?  Did  they  exist  before  the  ELMOS  project?  The  project  raise  the  need  of  good  and  fast   cycling  lanes  and  the  city  will  start  to  make  over  an  ordinary  cycle  lane  to  a  more  convenient  and  faster   cycle  lane.   -­‐              Would  it  be  relevant  to  build  a  new  bike  garage  similar  to  the  previous  one,  regarding  the   current  demand?  Is  it  already  planned  by  the  municipality?  Yes  we  are  planning  more  bike  garage  at   the  station  area.   -­‐              Do  you  know  if  any  company  has  installed  a  professional  cloakroom  or  shower  for  biking   workers  since  the  beginning  of  the  ELMOS  project?  Don’t  know  that.  Usually  almost  every  work  plays   should  have  showers  in  Sweden.   -­‐              What  conclusions  could  be  drawn  on  the  e-­‐car  installation?  Could  it  be  relevant  to  develop  an   e-­‐car  network?  There  is  now  a  network  for  on  charging  stations  here  in  south  of  Sweden  and  some   different  carpool  company  has  started  to  have  e-­‐cars  in  their  carpools.     -­‐              May  I  ask  what  are  the  other  cities  interested  in  the  project?  And  which  cities  have  already   built  a  similar  garage  for  bikes?   Ängelholm  -­‐­‐politik/Projekt/Pagaende-­‐projekt/VA11/Cykelgarage-­‐ vid-­‐Jarnvagsstationen/     Örebro  -­‐         Trelleborg  -­‐­‐infrastruktur/trelleborg-­‐c/cykelgaraget/            kolla  även       Pär  Wallin  -­‐  Project  leader  Sustainable  transport   Traffic  department  -­‐Technical  Services  -­‐  Växjö  kommun  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   From:  Justyna  Majewska   Sent:  Thursday,  February  04,  2016  8:40  AM   To:  Elsa  Bergery   Subject:  Re:  Fwd:  Fwd:  Few  questions  about  current  impacts  of  the  ELMOS  project   _________________________________________________________________________________________     -­‐                    Do  you  know  if  the  number  of  cyclists  in  general  (normal  bikes  or  private  electric  bikes)  has   increased  since  the  implementation  of  the  cycling-­‐friendly  campaign?  -­‐  about  15%   -­‐                    Do  you  have  some  figures  about  the  frequency  of  use  of  the  pedelecs?-­‐  Pedelecs  are  often  use  in   the  summer,  especially  for  long  distances.     -­‐                    What  is  the  area  of  the  pedelec  use?  Is  it  only  on  the  municipal  area  or  is  it  used  over  the   municipality  borders?  In  which  goal  (leisure,  everyday  commuting,  shopping)  ?  Pedelecs  are  used   over  the  municipality  borders  for  leasure  and  ocasionally  commuting.   -­‐                    One  of  your  goals  was  also  to  improve  the  public  transports:  how  did  this  idea  evolve?  Would   you  be  prepared  to  implement  a  multimodal  system  between  public  transports,  car  parks  and   bicycles?  There  is  a  new  bus  line  which  is  connnetcting  villages.  We  have  bicycle  racks  close  to  bus  stops.     -­‐                    It  is  said  in  your  “SWOT”  that  the  town  has  still  a  lack  of  sidewalks  and  bike  paths:  does  the   municipality  plan  to  fills  in  these  gaps?  It  is  said  also  that  there  is  a  risk  of  accident  because  of  a   low  level  of  security:  have  you  tried  some  solutions  to  reduce  this  risk  (e.g.  complementary  traffic   signs  like  in  Gdansk...)?  We  have  about  3  km  new    sidewalks  and  bike  paths  around  the  most  dangerous   roads.  There  are  also  speed  limits  zones  close  to  schools.       Further  questions:   -­‐                    Since  the  implementation  of  the  3  pedelecs,  do  you  know  if  any  citizens  have  bought  e-­‐bikes   for  their  own  private  use?  Is  there  an  increase  of  e-­‐bikes  sells  in  Trabkie  Wielkie?  We  know  that  five   peoples  bought  pedelecs  last  year  (inforamal  information).     -­‐                    Who  are  the  pedelec  users?  Municipality  employees?  Youths?  Elders?  What  is  their  profile?   Mostly  elders  (50+)   -­‐                    Do  you  plan  to  develop  the  rental  bicycle  network?   o        To  buy  more  pedelcs?  -­‐  Not  in  the  nearest  future,  there  are  enough  pedelecs  in  Trabki  Wielkie.   o        To  try  a  rental  system  of  classic  bikes?  -­‐  There  is  a  plan  to  develop  a  rental  system  of  classic  bikes.   -­‐                    Do  you  know  if  other  municipalities  are  interested  in  the  implementation  of  such  bicycle-­‐ friendly  plans  (Bike  rental  system,  bike  charging  station,  bike  paths...)?   o        Surrounding  municipalities,  in  the  context  of  a  common  public  transports  network?   o        Other  municipalities  from  Poland  or  from  Europe  that  want  to  learn  from  your  experience?  -­‐     We  don't  have  such  information.      Best  regards,  Justyna  Majewska  -­‐  Podinspektor  Justyna  Majewska     Urząd  Gminy  Trąbki  Wielkie  

    From:  Heidenreich,  Janette     Sent:  Tuesday,  February  09,  2016  8:39  AM   To:  Elsa  Bergery   Subject:  AW:  Few  questions  about  current  impacts  of  the  ELMOS  project   _______________________________________________________________________________     ·  What  is  the  funding  plan  of  the  pedelecs  rental  system  in  Rostock?     -­‐  Our  fully  automated  pedelec  rental  scheme  comprises  34  pedelecs  and  5  stations.  It  was  built  up  as  a   demonstrator  for  new  kinds  of  electric  mobility  in  public  transport  (PT)  and  started  in  June  of  2014.  The   total  investment  was  about  250.000,00  €.     -­‐  85%  of  the  investment  was  funded  by  the  European  Union  (South  Baltic  Programme),  15%  by  the   Rostocker  Straßenbahn  AG  –  the  local  transport  provider  in  Rostock.     -­‐  Our  pedelec  rental  scheme  is  no  spin-­‐off,  but  fully  integrated  into  the  company.      


· Is  this  network  complementary  or  parallel  to  the  public  transports  network?  Does  it  fill  some   public  transports  gaps?     -­‐  Our  pedelec  rental  system  complements  the  public  transport  network  in  the  western  part  of  the   Hanseatic  City  of  Rostock.     -­‐  Users  can  complement  their  mobility  chains  with  public  pedelecs  as  connecting  vehicles  to  public   transport.     -­‐  Users  can  go  for  a  ride  around  the  clock  for  max.  24  hours.     -­‐  Public  pedelecs  fill  some  PT  gaps  as  well  as  during  transport  free  times,  f.  e.  at  night  or  at  weekends.       ·  In  2015,  you  planned  to  implement  the  combined  ticket  for  VVW  and  pedelec  networks:  Is  it   working  currently?  Do  you  have  any  figures  about  the  flow  of  passengers  using  this  combined   ticket?     -­‐  In  2015,  we  have  implemented  a  combined  ticket  for  commuters  –  the  additional  monthly  card  elros   pedelec.     -­‐  Users  of  that  additional  card  need  a  subscription  to  VVW  monthly  or  annual  PT  ticket.     -­‐  The  additional  card  elros  pedelec  allows  using  the  elros  pedelecs  for  one  month  without  time  limit  for  a   flat  fee,  but  for  a  ride  for  max.  24  hours.       ·  Did  you  have  any  legal  problem  about  the  responsibility  of  the  pedelecs  owners  toward  users?   What  legal  scheme  did  you  adopt  for  the  pedelecs  rental  system?     -­‐  No,  we  did  not  have  any  legal  problem  about  the  responsibility  of  the  pedelec  owners  toward  users.     -­‐  We  are  the  owner  of  the  pedelecs  and  responsible  for  their  perfect  condition.     -­‐  We  developed  our  own  General  Terms  and  Conditions  and  Terms  of  Use  of  Rostocker  Straßenbahn  AG  for   the  use  of  the  elros  rental  pedelecs  -­‐  please  use  the  following  link:  http://www.rsag-­‐  >>   button  General  Terms  and  Conditions  in  the  footer.     ·  Do  you  have  an  app  informing  pedelecs  users  about  the  availability  of  the  bikes  in  the  charging   stations,  or  finding  a  direction  for  them?     -­‐  No,  we  have  no  App  informing  pedelec  users  about  the  availability  of  the  bikes  in  the  charging  stations.     -­‐  Users  have  to  subscribe  the  pedelec  rental  scheme  and  to  top  up  their  elros  customer  account  before   they  book  their  first  trip.     -­‐  The  booking  and  payment  system  on  the  website  www.elros-­‐  indicates  the  availability  of   pedelecs  per  station.     -­‐  Single  users  can  purchase  an  elros  day-­‐ticket  in  one  of  our  four  customer  service  centres  or  from  a  sales   partner  of  the  Rostocker  Straßenbahn  AG.  This  ticket  is  bounded  to  the  reserved  rental  period.       ·  Do  you  have  any  figures  about  the  flow  of  pedelec  users?  And  about  the  evolution  of  this  flow?     -­‐  We  have  about  300  users  and  the  share  of  subscribers  is  only  about  15  %.     -­‐  Main  target  groups  are  every  day  and  recreational  cyclists.  Only  3  commuters  used  the  additional  card   elros  pedelec  last  year.     -­‐  In  2015,  we  implemented  the  new  offer  for  single  users  and  could  sell  54  day-­‐tickets.     -­‐  A  statement  about  the  flow  we  can  provide  in  the  end  of  2016.  (In  2014,  we  granted  each  new  user  20   euro  bonus,  many  tried  the  public  pedelecs  only  once.)       ·  Do  you  have  any  figures  about  the  number  of  bikers  in  general?  Has  it  evolved  since  the   implementation  of  the  ELMOS  project?     -­‐  Figures  about  the  numbers  of  bikers  in  general  you  can  get  from­‐ monitor.html       ·  Have  you  noticed  an  increase  of  railway  transport  users  since  the  implementation  of  the  ELMOS   project?     -­‐  No,  there  was  no  increase  of  railway  transport  users  since  the  implementation  of  the  ELMOS  project.     34  pedelecs  and  5  stations  is  only  a  small  offer.  For  big  effects  a  great  network  of  stations  is  necessary.       ·  Did  you  have  any  feedbacks  from  the  surrounding  municipalities?  Could  they  be  interested  in  the   implementation  of  such  installations?     -­‐  We  had  feedbacks  from  two  surroundings  municipalities:  Bad  Doberan  (12.000  inhabitants)  and  the   Baltic  Sea  Resort  Nienhagen  (2.000  inhabitants).  Both  are  partners  in  our  pilot  project  elros  –  electric   mobility  in  Rostock.  Two  concession  agreements  allow  us  the  free  use  of  the  surface  for  pedelec  rental   station  at  these  locations.    


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   -­‐  And  there  was  a  feedback  of  a  private  investor,  interested  in  implementing  a  pedelec  rental  scheme  for   tourists  in  Rostock-­‐Warnemünde.       ·  Did  you  have  any  questions/investigations  from  other  cities  (In  Germany,  in  the  South-­‐Baltic  area   or  in  Europe)  that  could  be  interested  in  implementing  an  electric  mobility  network  (sharing   knowledge,  visits...)?     -­‐  We  had  an  inquiry  of  the  municipality  of  Neuruppin  –  a  medium  sized  town  in  Brandenburg/Germany   (32.000  inhabitants)  -­‐  regarding  an  exchange  of  knowledge  about  the  implementation  of  a  pedelec  rental   scheme.     -­‐  We  had  a  question  from  Göteborg/Sweden  regarding  our  web-­‐based  booking  and  payment  system  for   implementing  a  cargo  pedelec  system.     -­‐  Furthermore,  we  received  an  inquiry  from  a  transport  planning  offices  from  Hannover,  which  was   responsible  for  the  development  of  a  network  for  pedelec  rental  stations  in  the  AirRegion  on  behalf  of  the   Ministère  du  Développement  durable  et  des  Infrastructures  (Luxembourg).       Janette  Heidenreich   Rostocker  Straßenbahn  AG  -­‐  Department  Strategic  Projects  

        From:  Andrius  Sutnikas   Sent:  Wednesday,  February  10,  2016  8:09  AM   To:  Elsa  Bergery   Subject:  RE:  Few  questions  about  MartTech  LNG   ___________________________________________________________________     Bomin  Linde  and  SC  Klaipedos  Nafta  created  the  Blue  LNG  joint  venture  in  December  2015,  in  the   aim  to  build  and  operate  a  LNG  Bunker  Supply  Vessel  that  will  be  put  into  operation  in  2017.  Do   you  know  more  about  the  current  state  of  play?  Which  companies/ship  constructors  are  involved?     The  ship  is  planned  to  be  chartered  from  the  EU  ship-­‐owner,  I  don’t  know  the  details  on  the  construction   status.  The  ship  directly  linked  to  MarTech  LNG  value  chain  study  since  we  have  been  investigating  the   missing  links  and  had  pointed  the  size  and  the  type  of  the  bunkering  ship.    Plans  to  build  bunkering  ship  in   SBSR  are  still  valid  since      LitGas  has  formed  a  joint  venture  with  Statoil  and  they  are  planning  to  build  a   bunkers  ship  as  well.  Klaipedos  nafta  is  still  interested  to  build  bunkering  barge  after  they  will  be  done   with  on  shore  small  scale  terminal.       The  LNG  fuelled  ferry  of  Samso  has  been  built  in  the  Gdansk  shipyard  and  is  the  result  of  the   cooperation  between  Remontowa  (Poland),  STX  Finland  and  OSK-­‐Ship  Tech.  How  those  companies   have  been  gathered  on  this  project?  Did  they  participate  to  any  MartTech  LNG  event?  Have  they   planned  to  implement  other  projects  together  in  the  future?   OSK-­‐Ship  Tech  was  directly  involved  in  to  the  project  not  only  as  a  part  of  the  value  chain  –  projects   business  network,  but  we  have  also  cooperated  in  organizing  the  study  visit  to  Norway  on  the  LNG   powered  ferry  and  in  implementing  tender  procedures  for  LNG  supply  for  Samsoe  project.  Company  has   participated  in  4  project  events  also  they  have  been  presenting  the  project  at  SBSR  annual  event.   Remontowa  is  a  part  of  the  projects  business  network  value  chain  and  they  been  present  in  2  project   events.       Polskie  LNG  S.A.  is  planning  to  build  an  LNG  terminal  in  Świnoujście.  Do  you  have  any  information   about  the  future  general  contractor  of  the  project?  Do  they  plan  to  implement  such  a  cooperation   with  companies  and  operators  from  the  South  Baltic  Region?   We  have  been  cooperating  with  Polske  LNG  presenting  terminal  case  in  many  project  events  as  well  as  in   the  LNG  17  Houston.  We  have  implemented  the  feasibility  study  to  evaluate  option  of  the  LNG  ferry  route   in  between  Klaipeda  and  Swinoujscie.  They  are  planning  to  enable  bunkering  and  reloading  services  in  the   future  development  stages.            


The Gas  pipeline  linking  the  Klaipeda  LNG  terminal  and  the  Lithuanian  natural  gas  system  has   been  built  by  the  German  company  PPS  Pipeline  System,  as  the  dredging  of  the  port  has  been   operated  by  the  Dutch  company  Van  Oorde.  Had  those  companies  been  involved  by  the  MarTech   LNG  cooperation  platform?   No  the  pipeline  is  related  to  the  LNG  industry  but  it  has  not  been  the  target  we  have  been  focusing  on  LNG   applications  so  we  did  not  had  PPS  on  board.  Van  ord  is  our  target  group  and  we  have  them  on  the  list  as  a   possible  customer  of  LNG  powered  dredger  that    project  has  provided  a  technical  concept  for  .         The  Polish  energy  company  DUON  and  SC  Klaipedos  Nafta  are  planning  to  cooperate  starting  from   2017,  following  the  previous  contract  between  Klaipedos  Nafta  and  Estonian  JetGas  .  Did  DUON   and  JetGas  participate  to  any  workshop/seminar  organized  by  MarTech  LNG?   JetGas  has  been  involved,  by  the  project,  they  are  part  of  our  business  network  and  we  have  established   direct  contact  in  between  KN  and  JetGas  during  our  final  conference.  KN  has  also  linked  to  VentAmoniaks   in  ventspils  during  the  project  event  and  now  Ventspils  is  planning  to  cooperate  with  KN  on  building  as   small  scale  terminal  in  Latvia.       Do  you  have  any  figures  concerning  the  evolution  of  the  LNG  trade  since  the  opening  of  the  LNG   terminal  in  Klaipeda?     Please  note  that  we  are  further  working  on  the  initiative  and  the  last  developments  would  be:   A  study  program  in  Klaipeda  University  LNG  terminal  engineering     Lithuanian  LNG  cluster   GO  LNG  project,  funded  by  BSR  program  has  been  developed  during  the  MT  LNG       Andrius  Sutnikas   Business  development  manager  at  UAB  Marine  Technology   Klaipeda  Science  and  Technology  Park  

    From:  Stefan  Jankowski  []     Sent:  Thursday,  February  11,  2016  1:41  PM   To:  Elsa  Bergery   Subject:  RE:  Few  questions  about  MarTech  LNG  in  the  MUS   _____________________________________________________________________________     How  many  students  or  professionals  have  been  trained  so  far  within  the  Martech  LNG  programme   in  Szczecin?   There  are  50  professionals  trained  in  Szczecin  and  Gdynia  during  the  project  and  more  than  200  students   trained  in  MUS  using  materials  developed  within  the  project.     Are  you  involved  in  training  of  companies  as  well?  If  yes,  what  kind  of  companies  have  demands   for  such  qualification?   No,  currently  there  is  no  such  demands     What  kind  of  cooperation  the  MUS  has  developed  with  other  research  and  innovation  centers  such   as  the  Klaipeda  Science  and  Technology  Park  (or  others  within  or  outside  the  project)?     Good  results  obtained  in  MarTech  LNG  caused  another  projects  which  had  been  submitted  together  with   Wismar  University  within  Interreg  programmes.  They  concerned  fostering  clean  fuels  for  Baltic  Sea  and   inland  waterways.  On  the  base  of  MarTech  LNG  another  project  has  been  developed  together  with  KSTP,   WU,  MDCE,  BTH.  The  project  Go  LNG  will  be  launched  in  March  2016.     Have  any  scientific  papers  about  LNG  been  published  since  2010?   The  following  list  presents  most  of  scientific  publications  concerning  LNG  worked  out  by  MUS  researchers   individually  or  as  co-­‐authors::  


Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme   L.Gucma,  M.Gucma,  M.  Perkovic,  P.Vidmar,     Simulation  method  for  risk  assessment  in  LNG  terminal  design.     The  14th  Conference  International  Maritime  of  the  Mediterranean  IMAM  2011  Genua  -­‐  Włochy,  13-­‐ 16.09.2011  Proceedings  of  the  14th  International  Congress  of  the  International  Maritime  Association  of   the  Mediterranean  IMAM  2011   P.Vidmar,  S.Petelin,  M.  Perkovic,  L.Gucma,  M.Gucma,     The  influence  of  large  accidents  on  risk  assessment  for  LNG  terminals.  The  14th  Conference  International   Maritime  of  the  Mediterranean  IMAM  2011,  Genua  -­‐  Włochy,  13-­‐16.09.2011    Proceedings  of  the  14th   International  Congress  of  the  International  Maritime  Association  of  the  Mediterranean  IMAM  2011   L.Gucma,  M.Gucma,  P.Vidmar,  M.Perkovic,     Formal  LNG  terminal  design  process  from  the  navigational  point  of  view,  Materiały  konferencyjne  “Safe   shipping  on  the  Baltic  Sea”,  Gdańsk  23.09.2011,  str.  57-­‐68   K.Igielski  (2011),     TRANSAS  Liquid  Cargo  Handling  Simulator  as  an  instrument  of  LNG  carrier  stability  and  hull  strength   supervision  during  cargo  operations.  Symulator  Liquid  Cargo  Handling     Scientific  Journals  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin  Nr  25(97)2011,  Wydawnictwo  Naukowe  Akademii   Morskiej  w  Szczecinie,  ISSN  1733-­‐8670,  Str.  35-­‐40.   K.Igielski,  K.Prill,  (2011),       Wpływ  terminala  LNG  na  bezpieczeństwa  w  porcie  Świnoujście.  VIII  Konferencja  Naukowo-­‐Techniczna     “Logistyka,  Systemy  transportowe,  Bezpieczeństwo  w  transporcie”  LOGI-­‐TRANS  2011,  Szczyrk,  12-­‐ 15.04.2011,  Organizator:  Wydział  Transportu  i  Elektrotechniki  Politechniki  Radomskiej  i  Komitet   Transportu  PAN  czasopismo  Logistyka  +  2  płyty  CD  z  artykułami  recenzowanymi  Nr  3/2011,  maj-­‐ czerwiec,  Wydawnictwo  Instytutu  Logistyki  i  Magazynowania,  Poznań  ISSN  1231-­‐5478.   W.Ślaczka  (2011),     Estimation  of  the  consequences  of  LNG  vessel  tank  leakage  in  the  port  of  Świnoujście.   Zeszyty  Naukowe  Akademii  Morskiej  w  Szczecinie    Scientific  Journals  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin   S.Gucma  (2011),   Simulation  methods  in  LNG  terminal  design.  Scientific  Journals  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin,  Nr   25(97)2011,  Wydawnictwo  Naukowe  Akademii  Morskiej  w  Szczecinie,  ISSN  1733-­‐8670,  str.  28-­‐34.   Perkovic  M.,  Gucma  L.,  Przywarty  M.,  Gucma  M.,  Petelin  S.,  Vidmar  P.  (2012):     Nautical  risk  assessment  for  LNG  operations.  Journal  of  Mechanical  Engineering,     Vol.  58,  No.  10,  Editor  in  Chief:  Vincenc  Butala.  University  of  Ljubljana,  Faculty  of  Mechanical  Engineering,   Slovenia.­‐­‐volume/sv-­‐jme-­‐58-­‐10-­‐2012/,  ISSN  0039-­‐240,  pp.  607-­‐613.   Wydane:  październik  2012.   Łazuga  K.,  Górtowski  P.,  Górtowska  M.  (2012):     Analysis  of  the  effects  of  lng  vessel  accident  in  the  port  using  chemmap  simulator  and  sarmap  simulator.     7th  International  Scientific  Conference  EXPLO-­‐SHIP  2012.  „Problems  of  vessels  and  port  facilities   operation”.  Świnoujście,  15-­‐17.05.2012.  Conference  Proceedings  -­‐  Abstracts,  pp.  38-­‐39.   Gucma  S.  (2012):     Estimation  of  optimal  fairway  system  parameters  and  lng  tanker  utilization  condition  in  the  Świnoujście   harbour.     7th  International  Scientific  Conference  EXPLO-­‐SHIP  2012.  „Problems  of  vessels  and  port  facilities   operation”.  Świnoujście,  15-­‐17.05.2012.  Conference  Proceedings  -­‐  Abstracts,  pp.  44.   LNG  Terminals  design  and  operation,  Navigational  safety  aspects,     Editor:  Lucjan  Gucma,  Szczecin  2013,  Printed  by:  LuLu  2013,  ISBN:  978-­‐1-­‐4710-­‐9023-­‐3,  stron  268   A.Anczykowska,  W.Ślączka,  (2015),     The  dimensioning  the  approach  to  the  LNG  terminal  in  Świnoujście  using  analytical  and  simulations   methods,  Proceedings  of  the16th  INTERNATIONAL  SCIENTIFICAND  TECHNICAL  CONFERENCE  on   MARINE  TRAFFIC  ENGINEERING  (MTE)  and  International  Symposium  Information  on  Ships,   KOŁOBRZEG14-­‐16  OCTOBER  2015  Nr  25(97)2011,  Wydawnictwo  Naukowe  Akademii  Morskiej  w   Szczecinie,  ISSN  1733-­‐8670,  Str.  70-­‐76.   Stefan  Jankowski,     Prospects  for  LNG  in  the  South  Baltic  Sea  Region,  Scientific  Journals  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin   36(108)  2013;   Stefan  Jankowski,  Marcin  Przywarty,     LNG  supply  chain  in  the  SBSR,  Scientific  Journals  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin  36(108)  2013;   Wiesław  Juszkiewicz,     LNG  market  trends,  Scientific  Journals  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin  36(108)  2013;  


Stefan Jankowski,     Possibilities  for  the  Use  of  LNG  as  a  Fuel  on  the  Baltic  Sea,  International  Conference  TransNav  Gdynia   2013   Stefan  Jankowski,     Let's  be  clean  by  using  a  cool  fuel  -­‐  MarTech  LNG  report,  International  Conference  MTE-­‐ISIS  Kołobrzeg   2015;   Monika  HAPANIONEK,  Karolina  PILIP,  Joanna  ORYMOWSKA   Risk  management  of  LNG  vessels  through  the  mooring  equipment  selection  for  example  LNG  terminal  in   Świnoujście,  XIX  International  Conference  “TransComp”  Zakopane  2015     How  many  companies  working  in  LNG  technologies  or  businesses  have  cooperated  with  the  MUS   since  2010?   Polskie  LNG  S.A.,  PGNiG  S.A.,  Gaz-­‐System  S.A,  Cryogas  M&T  Poland  S.A.     Do  you  have  any  information  concerning  changes  in  the  student  flows  following  the  trainings   about  LNG  technologies?  Changes  in  the  companies  flows  aiming  to  enhance  competencies?   No,  but  some  info  you  can  get  from  Biuro  Karier  Akademii  Morskiej  w  Szczecinie:     To  what  extend  did  the  Martech  LNG  project  change  the  use  of  the  European  LNG  Training  Center   and  the  training  simulators  based  in  the  MUS?     The  Center  is  using  of  materials  developed  within  the  project.     dr  inż.  Stefan  Jankowski   Institute  of  Maritime  Traffic  Engineering  -­‐  Maritime  University  of  Szczecin    



Elsa Bergery  l    April  2016  l    Interreg  South  Baltic  Programme  

BERGERY Elsa, 2016, Territorial Cohesion In The South Baltic Region: The example of transport policies within Interreg cross-border cooperation, Institut d’Aménagement et Urbanisme de Lille, Université Lille 1, mémoire de Master 1 AUDT, Eurostudies, 77 p.

Mots clef : Gdansk, Région Sud Baltique, coopération transfrontalière, cohésion territoriale, transports

Key Words : Gdansk, South Baltic Region, cross-border cooperation, transport

Résumé : Ce mémoire a pour but de démontrer comment the programme Interreg South Baltic participe à la tendance d’harmonisation des moyens de transport dans la région, au travers d’une coopération transfrontalière à échelle locale, pour améliorer la cohésion territoriale. Les difficultés semblent pourtant importantes puisque les disparités entre les pays participants (Pologne, Allemagne, Danemark, Suède, Lithuanie) pourraient empêcher une telle coopération, et que l’UE développe déjà un large panel de programmes pour la cohésion territoriale. Donc il semble compromis pour Interreg South Baltic d’avoir un véritable impact sur les politiques de transport dans la région. Pourtant, on voit tout au long du développement en quoi ce programme de coopération transfrontalière est pertinent pour trouver des solutions locales et adaptées, tout en évoluant et s’améliorant.

Abstract : This thesis aims to demonstrate how does the South Baltic programme participate to the harmonisation trend of transport means in the region, through small-scale cross border cooperation, in the perspective of Territorial Cohesion. However, big disparities between involved countries (Poland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania) could impede cooperation, while the EU developed already a large range of cooperation programmes for Territorial Cohesion. So it could have been hard for the South Baltic programme to have an impact on transport means in the region. But we see throughout the development of the thesis, how relevant was this cross-border cooperation programme, to tackle problems on the local scale, while keeping evolving and enhancing itself.



Territorial Cohesion in the South Baltic Region  

Focus on transport policies of the Interreg South Baltic Programme (Thesis)