Governing Europe's Marine Environment

Europeanization of Regional Seas or Regionalization of EU Policies?

Michael Gilek, Kristine Kern

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781409447276
• eBook ISBN: 9781317125709
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Governing Europe's Marine Environment is a coherent up-to-date multidisciplinary analysis of current approaches and challenges to the sustainable governance of Europe's marine environment. Structured in three parts, Part 1 outlines general theoretical ideas about governance, governing, and governability and serves as a starting point for analysing the development of marine governance in Europe from the perspective of different disciplines. Part 2 includes studies of EU marine governance. Part 3 focuses on Europe's regional seas, namely the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea. This book presents a better understanding of the fragmented governance of marine governance in Europe and in particular the tension between the Europeanization of regional seas and the regionalization of EU policies.

Chapter 1
Governing Europe’s Marine Environment: Key Topics and Challenges

Kristine Kern and Michael Gilek

Introduction

This book aims for a better understanding of the fragmented governance architecture of marine governance in Europe by combining in-depth analysis of marine governance structures and processes with development of analytical perspectives. In particular the tension between the Europeanization of regional seas and the regionalization of EU policies is in focus.

Although the EU has become the most important political player in Europe’s regional sea areas, ecosystems as well as regional governance systems differ considerably across Europe’s regional seas. The contributions to this edited volume show that marine governance differs among the various regional sea areas in Europe, depending on the environmental problems and the regional institutions. The Europeanization of Europe’s regional seas may, therefore, lead to differing outcomes despite common objectives.

Moreover, the regionalization of EU marine governance has led to the emergence of new regional institutions. This trend can be observed in various areas, ranging from setting-up Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) for fisheries (Griffin 2007, Griffin 2009, Long 2010, Stör and Chabay 2010) to the introduction of a regional approach in EU directives (such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive) and launching macro-regional strategies (such as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 2009). This development points to a more regionalized approach to European integration, which may strengthen regional governance systems. Such an approach of more regionalization in marine governance provides flexibility for the development and implementation of regional sea conventions and macro-regional strategies.

Governing regional seas requires the establishment of a governance system for the entire region. Problems may occur because the boundaries of existing governance systems, the ecosystems, as well as various societal activities and impacts are not identical. Thus, the scope of regional conventions may be more appropriate than EU legislation because these regional institutions focus on the entire region, including non-member states (such as Russia and Norway). Decisions made in Brussels need to be adjusted to regional environmental institutions. However, marine governance in Europe can be characterized by a North-South divide with respect to the degree of Europeanization. The North Sea and the Baltic Sea on the one side differ considerably from the Mediterranean and the Black Sea on the other side because the regional seas in the North of Europe are surrounded almost only by EU member states (with Norway and Russia as the only exceptions).

Multi-Sector Perspectives

The chapters of this book concentrate on the various aspects of multi-sector, multi-level and multi-actor marine governance. From a multi-sector perspective it can be asked as to how the various environmental risks (e.g. over-fishing, pollution, habitat loss, invasive species, shipping, climate change, etc.) that threaten Europe’s coastal and marine environment can be governed? Traditionally, marine environmental management in Europe has focused primarily on handling particular sources of contamination (e.g. hazardous chemicals and nutrients) and extraction of resources (e.g. fish) in a polluter/extractor-oriented approach with a rather limited focus on protecting/restoring particular (valuable) marine areas (Karlsson et al. 2011). Gradually, however, an alternative and complementary environment-oriented approach, basing management of pollution and resource extraction on defined quality criteria and environmental objectives, has emerged. The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) is therefore based on an ecosystem approach (HELCOM 2007), i.e. the usual sectoral pollution reduction approach was replaced by a cross-sectoral approach that starts from the vision of a healthy sea with a good ecological status. Like HELCOM in its BSAP the EU developed an integrated approach for the protection of its marine environment based on an ecosystem approach. While the ecosystem approach has become the core approach in the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in some areas such as chemicals (REACH) and fisheries management (Common Fisheries Policy) a polluter/extractor-oriented command-and-control type of management still prevails (Karlsson et al. 2011).

Science-policy interactions are crucial for the development and outcomes of marine environmental governance (e.g. Rice 2005). Scientific expertise serves as a basis for decision-making in most policy domains of industrialized societies. However, when social or political conflicts emerge, the primacy of science in politics is often put into question thus creating new demands and challenges for the science system (Bijker et al. 2009, Linke et al. 2014). This is not least the case when it comes to the governance of large-scale marine environmental risks such as overfishing, eutrophication and hazardous chemicals, where the demarcation between the two domains of science and policy is far from clear-cut due to scientific uncertainty and disagreements among stakeholders (Wilson 2009, Karlsson et al. 2011, Linke et al. 2014). Scientific uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements are particularly problematic for marine environmental governance when attempting to implement a holistic cross-sectoral ecosystem approach to management (Rice 2005, Wilson 2009, Linke et al. 2014).

Multi-Level Perspectives

Marine governance in Europe is affected by European multi-level governance. Increasing Europeanization of regional seas may cause coordination problems because the implementation of EU policies, such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, requires close cooperation not only with the member-states but also with already existing environmental organizations (such as HELCOM). Due to European integration and various waves of European enlargement, the governing systems of Europe’s regional seas have undergone rapid changes since the 1970s and are now shaped by a fragmented governance architecture that combines national, international and European governance.

First, national environmental governance may vary considerably among the states surrounding regional seas. Thus, we find pronounced differences among the various regional seas in Europe. While the North Sea is bordered by founding members and countries that have long been members of the EU (except Norway) and exhibits well-developed national environmental governance systems, the group of Baltic Sea states includes old member states, new member states and Russia. While the Nordic countries and Germany can be considered as environmental pioneers, most of the new member states started to develop their environmental policy only recently. Like the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea has been directly affected by the end of the Cold War, and many of the riparian states, including Russia, are in transition from socialist states to market economies. However, in the Black Sea region only two countries (Bulgaria, Romania) are member states of the European Union, i.e. in the Black Sea region Europeanization is far less important than in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea regions. In the Black Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea regions the riparian countries seem to differ to a much higher degree than in the North Sea and Baltic Sea regions. Moreover, in these regions we find both interstate conflicts (for example between Ukraine and Russia in the Black Sea region) and intrastate conflicts (such as the civil war in Syria). As national environmental governance systems are still the backbones of regional environmental governance, prospects for a sustainable development of Europe’s regional seas varies considerable and seem to be better for the North Sea and the Baltic Sea than for the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

Second, regional seas are affected by global agreements (such as the IMO convention and UNCLOS), for example in the area of shipping (Suárez de Vivero and Rodriguez Mateos 2002), and by international treaties for regional sea areas. Initial efforts to improve the environmental situation in regional sea areas started relatively early. The Helsinki Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area was signed already in 1974. It was the first regional seas convention and triggered the creation of UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme. Today this program covers 18 regions in the world, including the Baltic Sea (Helsinki Convention), the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention 1976), the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention 1992) and the Black Sea (Bucharest Convention 1992) (Doussis 2006, Hoballah 2006, Costa 2009). Regional sea conventions are implemented by guidelines and action plans such as the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) (HELCOM, 2007). It uses a multi-level approach and distinguishes between measures that can be implemented at national level, at EU level (e.g. Common Fisheries Policy, Common Agricultural Policy), and at international level (e.g. shipping control by the International Maritime Organization).

Third, the Europeanization of regional seas has developed very quickly. This is most prominent in the area of fisheries, which is dominated by the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (Princen 2010), but includes a proliferating body of EU legislation affecting various aspects of the marine environment such as the Water Framework Directive, REACH, Natura 2000, and the EU Recommendations for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Moreover, the EU adopted a Marine Strategy Framework Directive in 2008 and is developing an Integrated Maritime Policy (see for example the Communication on Maritime Spatial Planning published in December 2010; COM(2010)771) (Suarez de Vivero 2006, Koivurova 2009, Queffelec et al. 2009, Borja et al. 2010, Fritz 2010, Juda 2010, Wakefield 2010, De Santo 2011). However, research shows a bifurcation between policies that aim at the use of ecosystem services such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy on the one hand and policies that are designed primarily for marine and coastal environmental protection such as the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive on the other (De Santo 2010, Wenzel 2011). This points to the need for horizontal coordination of EU legislation because different directives may lead to contradictory and incompatible policies, for example between fisheries and nature conservation. At the implementation level Europeanization of national marine governance is supported by Common Implementation Strategies that have been developed, for example, for the Water Framework Directive and for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Multi-Actor Perspectives

Vertical interplay within the region may strengthen the regional governance system and support the regionalization of EU policies. The multi-level systems of regional seas cannot be governed solely by hierarchical structures. Alongside horizontal interplay between regional environmental institutions and the EU, vertical interplay is of special interest for the development of regional governance systems. Vertical interplay in (regional) multi-level systems may result in a shift of competencies, for example from national governments to regions and cities.

In all regional seas governmental initiatives have been supplemented by initiatives of non-governmental and subnational organizations (Kern and Löffelsend 2004, Joas et al. 2007, 2008). Alongside subnational authorities, NGOs play an increasing role for vertical interplay in regional sea areas. Such forms of transnational governance range from the Black Sea NGO Network (BSNN) to the Union of the Baltic Cities. Moreover, transnational city networks have developed and thrived in Europe since the early 1990s (Kern and Bulkeley 2009).

Cross-level institutional arrangements such as transnational city networks or transnational networks of micro-regions may function as boundary or bridging organizations and play an intermediary role between different arenas and levels. In recent years, the transnationalization of regional seas transformed traditional international organizations such as HELCOM. Inclusion of subnational authorities at regional level (for example by granting observer status to city networks in regional sea conventions) strengthens the vertical coordination of regional sea areas and improves the implementation of regulations. Thus, the Baltic Sea Action Plan is the result of the active participation of all major stakeholder groups in the region, i.e. the shared vision of a healthy Baltic Sea has been defined together with all relevant stakeholders. The organization of regional stakeholder conferences has led to a transformation of decision-making at regional scale.

Structure and Content of the Book

The individual chapters of the book discuss various facets of marine governance in Europe from both the European and the regional perspective. Although various links exist between national, international and European governance arrangements, research has focused primarily on specific environmental institutions (such as HELCOM) or on EU policies, thereby neglecting the multi-level character of marine governance, the differences between Europe’s regional seas, the interaction between EU legislation and regional sea conventions, and the transferability of regional best practice.

Consequently, in response to the above outlined key challenges and critical research gaps the analysis of European marine governance presented in this book is organized in three parts. In the first part key analytical perspectives on marine governance are discussed with the aim of contributing to the development of more comprehensive and multi-disciplinary analytical approaches for studying marine governance and its challenges. This includes general theoretical ideas about governance, governing, and governability which serve as a starting point for analysing the development of marine governance in Europe from the perspective of different disciplines, in particular on political, social, legal aspects as well as the ecosystem approach. This includes chapters on new forms of marine governance, institutional capacity building in multi-level systems, the role of law in marine governance, and the implications of the ecosystem approach for marine governance.

In the second chapter Jentoft and Chuenpagdee argue, based on examples of marine protected areas (MPA) and marine spatial planning (MSP) initiatives, that the appropriateness of marine governance strategies depend on the marine social and ecological system, as well as the capability of the governing system to implement them. A critical assessment of the system that is being governed, the governing system, and the governing interactions in their natural, socio-cultural and political environments, is therefore required. They assume that it is in the systems and their contexts that the means to enhance governability would be found. They contend that the governing system must somehow reflect the diversity, complexity, dynamics and scale of the marine social and ecological system. Enhancing governability will therefore require critical assessment of these systems and considerable institutional adaption and, in many instances, innovation.

In the following chapter, Van Tatenhove develops a conceptual model to understand and analyse institutional capacity building in a multi-level governance setting. It is shown that institutional capacity building is required to design and implement integrated marine governance arrangement at the level of, for example, regional seas, in a complicated multi-level institutional setting. The chapter concludes that capacity building is influenced by marine governance arrangements, power dynamics, as well as negotiations and the translation to formal decision-making. It is also hypothesized that institutional capacity building in marine governance will differ for the European seas because every sea has a different institutional setting. This will affect the involvement of stakeholders, the possibility to mobilize knowledge and relational resources and the possibility to define rules at the regional sea level. Consequently, comparison of institutional capacity building in various governance contexts such as in different regional seas is therefore identified as an important focus for future research.

The next analytical perspective added to the analysis of marine governance is the role of law. In their chapter Bohman and Langlet provide a conceptual basis for analysing the multi-levelled web of rules and processes that make up the legal aspect of marine governance in Europe. They argue that much of the pertinent legislation is ambitious and promising, providing a ground for a more coordinated and compound implementation, and introducing new judicial tools and mechanisms. However, several factors that may counteract successful governance are also identified (e.g. linked to the far-reaching coordination between policy areas envisioned in the ecosystem approach). Consequently, it is concluded that continued political commitment to marine governance is a prerequisite for law to serve as the strong floater that it ought to be.

Finally, in the last chapter of the first part of the book, Monica Hammer contributes with a state-of-art review and analysis of various perspectives and framings of ecosystem management, as well as the implications and challenges of this holistic management approach for the governance of Europe’s marine environment. She concludes that, despite many severe implementation challenges, the present policy framework within the EU is promoting a shift towards a more comprehensive ecosystem management of marine systems acknowledging the interconnections within ecosystems as well as links between ecosystems and humans. However, processes such as stakeholder participation, learning and innovation are identified as being in need of more research in relation to ecosystem management and its possibilities and challenges.

The second part focuses on rigorous analysis of marine governance of the European Union, in particular the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Common Fisheries Policy. Marine governance in Europe is still characterized by a bifurcation between policy areas that are dominated by a polluter/extractor-oriented approach (such as the Common Fisheries Policy) and policy areas that have incorporated the ecosystem approach (such as the MSFD). This part focuses on the internal dimension and institutional tensions of the MSFD, on the stakeholder involvement in European fisheries and the science-policy interfaces in European marine governance. The studies in this part also show faster developments in the North and the Baltic Seas on the one hand and the Mediterranean and Black Seas on the other.

Chapter 6 by De Santo examines the potential of the MSFD as a catalyst for Marine Spatial Planning in the European Union focusing, first, on the institutional tensions and their implications within the European Union (in particular between DG Environment and DG MARE) and beyond EU borders (regional sea conventions, non-EU members); and second on the integration of a wide range of legislative instruments at the national and regional levels. The ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Notes on Contributors
• List of Abbreviations
• Preface
• 1 Governing Europe’s Marine Environment: Key Topics and Challenges
• Part 1: Analytical Perspectives on Marine Governance
• Part 2: Marine Governance of the European Union
• Part 3: Marine Governance of Europe’s Regional Seas
• Index