Foreign Minister Tuomioja: Baltic Sea cooperation at a crossroads

Address by Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja at the 10th anniversary seminar of the Baltic Institute of Finland called "Baltic Sea Cooperation in the Changing Europe"

Tampere, Finland
20 October, 2004




First I would like to express my gratitude to the organisers for the opportunity to address this 10th anniversary of the Baltic Institute of Finland.

We are today celebrating an institution which is very typical of today's Finland. I understand that this institute is very much an endeavour of the City of Tampere. But at the same time, this institute is a well-functioning framework where several important actors in our society are involved. In the local and regional context, this is a good practical example of local and regional authorities, academic institutions, the business community and even a couple of ministries defining common interests and finding joint solutions.

The fact that all these different stakeholders have been working together, pursuing common goals, has in my opinion, been one of the most important characteristics behind the development of our national success stories, be it Nokia or Finland as the most competitive economy in the world.

In Baltic Sea co-operation, the City of Tampere and the Pirkanmaa region may seem to be somewhat out of place. However, the activities of cities and regions which are not littoral to the Baltic Sea are most welcome and a testimony of their awareness of the importance of connections.

Since its establishment in 1994, the Baltic Institute of Finland has been an example of international cooperation and networking in the Baltic Sea Region. The Institute's projects - mostly in the fields of the environment and the information society - illustrate well today's Baltic Sea cooperation. The Baltic Institute has been an active partner for our Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish neighbours. I have been informed that today the Institute works more and more with partners in St. Petersburg. Institute's projects with St. Petersburg, for example "e-St. Petersburg" and "Enhancing Air Quality Monitoring System in St. Petersburg" are good examples of practical, partnership-based projects between Russia and Finland.

The trend seen in the Institute's projects, shifting from the Baltic States to Northwestern Russia, reminds us generally of the history of Finnish cross-border co-operation with the adjacent areas. When we started this co-operation, we stressed the importance of supporting our neighbours in the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland. Today, the focus is more and more towards Northwestern Russia.

When examining the recent developments of the Baltic Sea co-operation, we can see how our aims and goals have evolved. Firstly, a dominant goal was to build up societies that had regained their sovereignty. That mission can be considered accomplished. But right at the very beginning, another aim of the Baltic Sea co-operation was to create a forum for a dialogue between the Baltic States and Russia. This dialogue is now mostly channelled through the EU-Russia co-operation structures. And – last but not least – one of the original aims was to offer Russia one alternative on her way to European co-operation structures.

I would like to deal with this issue of Russia on her way to European structures more thoroughly. This could, of course, also be defined vice versa – European structures opening new opportunities for Russia.

In our regional co-operation we have, to a large extent, had the same agenda as in our bilateral co-operation. This seems to be the case also for the EU-Russia co-operation. In my view, there have been many success stories. As I have stressed on several occasions, the relations between Finland and Russia have, in recent years, been better than ever.

One of the basic aims of the Finnish initiative to establish the Northern Dimension policies of the EU was to create, among our EU partners, greater awareness of this new neighbour. As an EU Member State, Finland has been acting in the same direction as in its bilateral relations. We have actively promoted the strategic partnership between the EU and Russia in a good neighbourly spirit.

Also the EU-Russia relations as a whole have developed very positively, especially since the signing of the EU and Russia Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA). The relations between the EU and Russia have not always developed smoothly. The atmosphere and results have varied from one summit to another.

After the EU-Russia summit in Rome last year, a thorough internal evaluation of the EU-Russia relations was undertaken in the EU. The analyses and recommendations of the evaluation report gave the EU's actions the lucidity necessary for the various negotiations during last spring. The EU and Russia agreed upon extending the PCA to the new Member States. They also agreed upon a joint declaration on Russian concerns related to the EU enlargement. A protocol was signed on the conditions of the WTO membership of Russia. As to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, one result of the negotiations was a promise to speed up the process. This process seems to be well on its way, which is very welcome.

A relatively new structure for the EU-Russia co-operation is the work towards the four common spaces. From now on, the action plan for the four common spaces is designed to be the main steering instrument for the co-operation. The negotiations have been intensive, and the progress will be discussed at the EU-Russia Summit in November.

As to our Finnish interests in this framework, environmental issues are of major significance. As bordering neighbours, the environment is clearly our common concern, ranging from the climate change to nuclear safety, safety of maritime transport and the state of our border waterways. For the time being, we feel that it is of utmost importance that an environmental meeting be convened in the framework of the Permanent Partnership Council (PPC) during this autumn. This meeting should deal with the whole range of the environmental co-operation, including its forms and mechanisms.

We have recently, once again, had an intensive discussion on human rights issues. These are included, inter alia, in the common space of freedom, security and justice. Finland, for her part, has encouraged Russia to co-operate with the international mechanisms dealing with human rights. As we all know, Russia is a member of both the Council of Europe and the OSCE. We have condemned all forms of terrorism for which there can be no justification. As to the war in Chechnya, I believe it cannot be solved by the use of military force without a political solution.

Visas are a significant question in the current EU-Russia relations. I would like to stress that the facilitation of the movement of people between the EU and Russia is a goal shared by the EU, Russia and Finland alike. The summits have agreed that the flexibility provided by the Schengen Agreement should be utilised and that the facilitation should be based on the principle of reciprocity. We are satisfied with the fact that both parties have expressed their preparedness for negotiations, and we are open for Russian proposals for these talks.

Finland's EU membership has brought a wider European perspective to our bilateral relations with Russia. Our bilateral relations are developing positively. Interaction is increasing on all levels and is expected to do so also in the future. Last year six million people crossed our eastern border.

We may from time to time have agenda issues that could be regarded as contentious, but we are also prepared to deal with these issues in an open and frank way.

Our southern neighbours, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, have recently joined the EU. One of the consequences for us will be that our own assistance to the neighbouring areas will be shifted to Northwestern Russia, to the area of Northern Dimension. One particular aim of our cross-border co-operation with the neighbouring areas from now on is to form trilateral projects with Finnish, Russian and Baltic – that is Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian – participation. As a matter of fact, one of the regional success stories has been our trilateral co-operation between the border guards of Finland, Russia and Estonia.

We have noted an increasing interest of some EU partners towards the New Neighbours, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova. This does not conflict with developing cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. There is certainly a need for an efficient Neighbourhood Policy of the EU. Of course, this is especially in the interests of those EU Member States which have an EU external border. This neighbourhood policy should be connected to a financing instrument efficient enough to allow appropriate funding of co-operation with both Northwestern Russia and the New Neighbours.

This equation should include the Eastern and Southern Dimensions as well as the Northern Dimension. Finland also has the opportunity to extend its own assistance activities to the New Neighbours, in particular Belarus and Ukraine.

These fundamental changes, caused by the EU enlargement, in the structures and instruments for cross-border co-operation on the external EU borders will also involve some major changes in the co-operation between Finland and Russia. We may, however, count the existing programmes as a basis for co-operation at least in the near future.

Lately, trade between Finland and Russia has increased significantly. For the time being, Finland is number eight in Russian export and number ten in Russian import. We may soon see Russia taking the first place among the trade partners of Finland.

One of the bottle-necks in our trade with Russia has been border crossing. We have seen some positive development in the Russian border procedures, and we do hope that the scenes with jams and queues will fade away. In spite of the problems occurring on our eastern border, it has been called the best functioning border of the Russian Federation.

All this has a clear bearing also on regional co-operation. Most of the activities on the governmental level have connections to regional activities. What I have been talking about is very much a concern of governments and necessitates intergovernmental actions.

All the work done in the intergovernmental fora has been and will be necessary in order to make it possible for other actors to step up the stage.

Ladies and gentlemen,

When we think about the development of the Baltic Sea region since the beginning of last decade, we have really come to a crossroads. Few of us could have believed in the early nineties that our southern neighbours would become members of the European Union in 2004. But, of course, what is most exciting is the development of the societies in the Baltic Sea region. We have been witnessing a breathtaking social and economic change. The economic growth in our southern neighbour states has been, and seems to be also in the near future, on European top level. And these states, which have recently become members of the EU, have also built well functioning democratic institutions.

But after having said this, I would still like to raise the question how much the world really changed on the first of May this year. Mentally very much, certainly. The most substantial change brought by the EU enlargement in the Baltic Sea region was the expansion of the internal market. Regardless of this, we still have problems to solve for example with infrastructures, border-crossing procedures and administrative bottle-necks. Some of the societies in the region are struggling against corruption, which must be rooted up.

All in all, we have to face most of the same challenges which were in front of us before the first of May. We have to combat organised crime and try to control communicable diseases. And the environmental threats – pollution and nuclear safety issues – are still there. But we have also opportunities arising from the energy resources up in the north. The valuable assets offered by highly educated people are obvious.

We have tried to tackle the above-mentioned challenges in our regional co-operation. At the beginning of next year, Finland will assume the lead role in our Baltic Sea Task-Force on organised crime. The earlier work on communicable diseases will continue in the framework of the Northern Dimension Partnership in Public Health and Social Well-being.

Environmental issues are and will be dealt with in various fora. In the Baltic Sea region we have established the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership, which includes, for example, work on wastewater treatment in St Petersburg. HELCOM has its own role as a high level expert organisation. The agenda of the International Maritime Organisation IMO contains efforts to achieve approval of the Baltic Sea as a particularly sensitive sea area (PSSA). The work is under way, though, at least for the time being, it excludes the Russian territorial waters.

In the Gulf of Finland, sea transports have increased immensely, including both oil transport from Russian ports and maritime passenger traffic between Helsinki and Tallinn. As a concrete step forward, the authorities of Finland, Russia and Estonia have established a mandatory ship reporting system for all vessel traffic in the Gulf of Finland. All vessels are obliged to report their routes and positions (Gulf of Finland Reporting GOFREP). This system started on 1 July this year.

Ladies and gentlemen,

For intergovernmental co-operation in Northern Europe, we have the Council of the Baltic Sea States CBSS, the Barents Euro-Arctic Council BEAC, the Arctic Council, and the Nordic Council of Ministers. Lately we have established Nordic-Baltic Co-operation, as a matter of fact in two compositions: N+B8 comprising all the Nordic countries and the Baltic States, and 3+3 comprising the Nordic EU-members and the Baltic States. This means quite a heavy work load especially for those Nordic governments which participate in both compositions. This complexity of various fora and structures may give rise to the question whether we really need all of them.

I would like to emphasize that these intergovernmental bodies provide valuable services to authorities, a channel for a dialogue of other, non-governmental actors with the governments, and an opportunity for these actors to get their voice heard by the governments. We must also remember that each of the bodies has its own history and its own founding fathers. Of course, we must strive for coordination between these councils working in Northern Europe. Duplication and overlapping should be avoided, and a sensible division of labour should be created.

For the time being, I see a need for two main structures or fora in the intergovernmental Baltic Sea co-operation. Firstly, we need a forum where we have Russia as a full partner, so that all the participants act on an equal footing. Secondly, in addition to such a forum, we need a structure or structures for the Baltic Sea EU members' acting towards Brussels. The composition of this latter grouping may and will vary depending on the interests of the various Member States.

The Baltic Sea EU Member States do not form a homogenous group. Not even the Nordic countries or the Baltic States, let alone Germany and Poland. But when their interests coincide, it would certainly be valuable to have one voice to express this. I feel that we need to be flexible and look for suitable solutions case by case. As one topical example of coinciding interests, I would like to mention the concept of the Motorways of the Baltic Sea, which has been introduced in the EU framework.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I suppose you form an audience mainly representing regional and local actors. It is not a cliché when I say that the future of regional co-operation belongs to regional and local interlocutors and non-governmental organisations.

As to the non-governmental organisations in the Baltic Sea region, they have been supported by the governments. I would like to stress that the legal conditions for the work of NGOs should be established and supervised by the governments. This is what Finland has done. By the way, the development of the working conditions of NGOs was also one priority of the Finnish CBSS Presidency, which was concluded in June 2003. But after the legal framework and the working conditions have been set up, the NGOs should act independently, according to their primary purpose.

Ladies and gentlemen,

One of our main tasks for the future is to assist in building up and developing well functioning civil societies. This is a task where, in my opinion, actors such as NGOs and the City of Tampere, with the Baltic Institute as one instrument, can be helpful. The structures created around this institute can give us a living example of local actors defining common goals and sharing the load, as well as the fruits.

One of today's slogans is networking. In my view, we should make use of the thinking behind this concept. We need flexible models of co-operation for various needs and for various compositions of actors. This is what exists in this institute.

I hope all the best to the Institute celebrating its 10th anniversary. May it have a prosperous future.

Thank you for your attention.