Suchergebnisse

Despite early initiatives during the 1960s and 1970s, and continuing efforts ever since, the Baltic Sea remains in poor condition. The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) is the governing body tasked with protecting the marine environment from further deterioration through intergovernmental collaboration between the Baltic Sea states and the EU. In 2007, HELCOM launched a new tool – the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), of which the so-called ecosystem approach is a cornerstone. However, how and why the BSAP reform was launched, and also what consequences such management reforms can have for transboundary resource management, is unknown. By using institutional theory, organizational theory and the advocacy coalition framework, in combination with content analysis of official documents derived from HELCOM, this thesis argues that the BSAP is the end result of a gradual process of change within institutional structures and actor beliefs. This thesis also shows that HELCOM's capacity to detect, process, and react in response to changes in its regulatory objective has not changed as a consequence of the BSAP. In contrast to earlier research, it seems HELCOM responds better to slow and opaque changes than to quick and visible ones. Finally, by comparing HELCOM with two other similar cases, the thesis shows that HELCOM's adaptive capacity could be improved in line with the recommendations of the ecosystem approach. This thesis illustrates the importance of studying the emergence of new tools for governing transboundary resources from several theoretical perspectives. The thesis uses an innovative quantitative content analysis and concludes that new methods might be required to enable such studies. The different perspectives used here give various explanations concerning the causes and consequences of the BSAP. In a future Baltic Sea, where environmental changes are likely to be abrupt, a multitude of understandings regarding the governance of the Baltic Sea will be crucial. ; At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Submitted. Paper 3: Submitted. Paper 4: In press.

Governance of marine resources is increasingly characterized by integrated, cross sectoral and ecosystem based approaches. Such approaches require that existing governing bodies have an ability to adapt to ecosystem dynamics, while also providing transparent and legitimate outcomes. Here, we investigate how the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), the international governing body for the Baltic Sea, could improve its prospects for working with the ecosystem approach, drawing from the literature on adaptive governance. We construct an ideal type of adaptive governance to which we compare the way in which HELCOM is operating and relate these dynamics to two other international marine environment governance organizations, the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF) and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). We conclude that HELCOM deviates from an ideal type of adaptive governance in several ways but also that the other two case studies provide empirical support for potential ways in which HELCOM could improve its adaptive capacity. Key aspects where HELCOM could improve include increasing stakeholder participation – both in information sharing and decision making. Further, HELCOM need to develop evaluation mechanisms, secure compliance to improve adaptive capacity and organizational effectiveness, which entails the development of structures for conflict resolution. Finally, HELCOM need to increase communication and harmonization between different levels of authority.

In 2008, the European Commission adopted its first legislative instrument for comprehensive protection of the marine environment, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2012, the first concrete steps have been taken in the implementation of the directive, including its transposition into national legislations and the preparation of the first phase of the national marine strategies, i.e. Initial Assessment (IA) (Art.8), Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) (Art.9), and Setting Environmental Targets and Indicators (Art.10). These steps aim at national marine strategies that will further include a Monitoring Programme and a Programme of Measures. The aim of this report is to describe and compare the different preparation processes the MSFD enacted in Denmark, Poland, Sweden and Finland. Throughout the Baltic Sea region, the preparation process has been supported by informal EU level working groups as well as by HELCOM working groups and projects. While the former WGs have concentrated on creating common understanding and providing guidelines for the process, the contribution of the latter ones has been mainly on providing relevant information (i.e. assessments and indicators) for the Baltic Sea region. This study was conducted between June and October 2012 and therefore the observations presented in this report reflect to the processes that took place up to October 2012. The MSFD had been transposed into national legislation in all of the case countries apart from Poland in which the transposition is expected to be finalised by the end of 2012. The delay in the transposition process has significant consequences to the preparation process of Polish national marine strategy. However, all of the four countries failed to finalise the first phase of the national marine strategies (i.e. articles 8, 9 and 10 of the directive) by July 15th 2012, as was required by the directive. Furthermore, the directive stipulated that the first phases of the national marine strategies are reported to the Commission by October 15th 2012, but Denmark was the only country able to report the complete first phase of its national marine strategy to the Commission by the established deadline. The preparation processes and the modes of operation varied regarding, for example, the division of responsibilities in the preparation process. In Denmark and Sweden the responsibility for implementing the MSFD was given to a single agency, whereas in Poland and Finland the responsibility was shared between three ministries and their respective administrative sectors. In Denmark and Poland, the preparation of articles 8, 9 and 10 were outsourced through tendering to national research institutes, universities and a consultancy company (in Denmark), whereas in Finland and Sweden, the related authorities (government agencies and institutes) have carried out the preparatory work as a part of their official duties. In all of the four countries, relevant administrative sectors participated in the preparation process, however, wider stakeholder participation was organised only through the hearing procedures. The hearing procedure was organised in Finland and Sweden in the spring of 2012 and in Denmark over the summer of 2012. The procedure will be organised in Poland after the transposition of the MSFD has been finalised. Despite of the short – only 4 weeks long – hearing procedures over a hundred comments were received in Finland and over seventy in Sweden. In Denmark, the process lasted for 12 weeks and 28 comments were received. ; KnowSeas - Knowledge-based Sustainable Management of Europe's Seas