The Content and Administration of Swedish Assistance to the Baltic States
In this chapter, the primary ambition is to describe the administration and content of the Swedish support. This is relevant for the validity of the model, since these issues constitute the most important link between the interests of the key decision-makers and the implementation of the chosen strategy vis-à-vis the Baltic States. The main purpose is not, however, to detect bureaucratic distortions in the governmental implementation, but to show that the CEE assistance primarily was not implemented by the main foreign aid agency, Sida, but rather by agencies specialized in transfer of technology, financing, and advanced international cooperation. This shows the notion described earlier that the environmental assistance was perceived by the governments as well as by the other parties in the parliament as something different from traditional foreign aid. The choice of implementing agencies thus indicates something about the strategies chosen by the parliament. The most important reason why the focus is not on the potential influence of the bureaucracy on the actual implementation phase is that the prime interest is not in the outcome, in terms of impact in the Baltic States. Rather, the focus is set on the preferred policies of Sweden.
KeywordsRecipient Country Waste Water Treatment Plant Baltic State Swedish Company Sewage Network
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 186.According to some sources, it was not uncommon in the first years of the Swedish CEE program, however, that the original initiative came from a donor country’s consulting corporation. This has been described in the case of Swedish environmental support to Poland. See for example Radetzki (1994).Google Scholar
- 187.See for example Hjorth (1992; 1995) and Pedersen (1994).Google Scholar
- 188.Originally, 132 Hot Spots were identified, but in 1994 eight of them were removed. The removed Hot Spots were all located in the north-western part of the region, four in Finland and four in Sweden (HELCOM 1994). In the early 2000s, nine additional Hot Spots were removed. As the criteria for the selection were expected to change, however, new Hot Spots would possibly be identified (SNV 2000b).Google Scholar
- 189.The twinning agreement between Kaunas Water Company, Lithuania and Stockholm Water Company is described in Danielsson (1998). A more general description of Swedish environmental twinning agreements in the Baltic Sea region can be found in Falk (1996).Google Scholar
- 190.For analysis over the adherence to this principle in the HELCOM process, see Mickwitz (1998)Google Scholar