Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 19 December 2014, At: 14:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Baltic StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbal20
Governance For SustainableDevelopment in the Baltic SeaRegionKristine KernPublished online: 23 Feb 2011.
To cite this article: Kristine Kern (2011) Governance For SustainableDevelopment in the Baltic Sea Region, Journal of Baltic Studies, 42:1, 21-35, DOI:10.1080/01629778.2011.538517
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2011.538517
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Journal of Baltic StudiesVol. 42, No. 1, March 2011, pp. 21–35
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE BALTIC SEA REGION
Kristine Kern
Introduction
Since the end of the Cold War, the Baltic Sea region has developed into one of themost dynamic areas in Europe. The region’s geopolitical landscape changed rapidlywhen Sweden and Finland joined the European Union in 1995, followed by Polandand the three Baltic Republics in 2004. Today, the Baltic Sea is virtually an internalsea of the European Union, with Russia as the only country in the region that is nota member of the EU. In addition to a dynamic economy, particularly in the formersocialist countries, the fall of the Berlin Wall triggered radical institutional changesin the early 1990s and strengthened the regional governing system in the Baltic Searegion, which, due to its deep East–West divide, was rather weak. Thus, many neworganizations whose activities focus on the integration of the Baltic Sea region werefounded in the early 1990s.
Since the early 1990s, environmental governance in the Baltic Sea region hasbeen transformed by EU enlargement and the debates surrounding Agenda 21, whichresulted from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 was far more important for theNordic countries, but also for West Germany, which had already been among a groupof environmental pioneers in the early 1990s. Moreover, joining the EU had differentimplications for Sweden and Finland, on the one hand, and Poland and the three Balticstates, on the other. For the Nordic countries it was essential to maintain theirhigh environmental standards and, at the same time, to gain more influence onenvironmental decision-making in Brussels. In Poland and the three Baltic States,EU accession triggered a new phase of environmental policy because the candidatecountries had to adopt the aquis communautaire and adapt to EU standards before beingallowed to enter the Union.
Correspondence to: Kristine Kern, Wageningen University, Environmental Policy Group (175), Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN
Wageningen, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0162-9778 (print)/ISSN 1751-7877 (online) � 2011 Journal of Baltic Studies
DOI: 10.1080/01629778.2011.538517
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
In recent years the EU has pursued a new approach that is more reliant on macro-regional strategies for balancing enlargement, external relations, and regionaldevelopment. Initiatives such as the ‘Northern Dimension’, which also includescountries neighboring the EU, constituted a first step in this direction; more recentlythis has led to a general debate on the development of the ‘EU Strategy for the BalticSea Region’, which the European Commission presented in June 2009 and which aimsfor the sustainable development of the region.
This article examines the various elements that constitute multi-level governancein the Baltic Sea region and how the regional governing system has changed over time,due to the end of the Cold War and EU enlargement. It discusses how national,international, European, and transnational governance interact and contribute to thesustainable development of the region and then analyzes the limitations of the regionalgovernance system. The next section of this article focuses on general aspects of thegoverning and governability of the Baltic Sea; and the third on the elements of theregional governing system in the area of environmental policy and sustainabledevelopment. The article then turns to the main limitations of the existing governingsystem and asks how the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea region may help to meet thechallenges and facilitate the prospects for sustainable development in the Baltic Searegion.
Governing and Governability of the Baltic Sea region
From the perspective of interactive governance theory, governing a regional sea suchas the Baltic can be regarded as a relationship between two systems, a ‘governingsystem’ and a ‘system-to-be-governed’. Both are diverse, complex, dynamic, andvulnerable. While the former is a social system made up of institutions and steeringmechanisms, the latter is partly natural and partly social because it consists of both theresources of the ecosystem and the stakeholders who may form political coalitions(Jentoft 2007, p. 360). Kooiman (2008) defines governability as a concept consistingof three main components, i.e. a system-to-be-governed, a governance system, andthe interactions between these two systems. Governance systems and the forms ofinteractions between the two systems differ, depending on the specific governanceactivities.
The governing system of the Baltic Sea underwent a rapid change and is nowshaped by new institutional arrangements and decision-making procedures, includingpublic involvement and stakeholder participation. Such arrangements aim to utilizethe specific knowledge of users and stakeholders, and are also essential for thelegitimacy of decisions ( Jentoft et al. 2007). The ecosystem(s) of the Baltic Sea,i.e. the system-to-be-governed, is a shallow and semi-enclosed sea and one of thelargest brackish water bodies in the world. It is divided into several basins (such asthe Gulf of Finland) and has a drainage basin four times larger than the sea itself,which includes non-coastal countries such as Belarus and Ukraine. Ecosystems inthe region are unique and fragile, contain a low number of species, and are highlysensitive to pollution. The pressure on the system is high because the sea harbors someof the busiest shipping lanes in the world and is surrounded by many large cities
22 JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
(such as St. Petersburg, Stockholm, and Riga) and regions with intensive industrialand agricultural activities. As water exchange between the Baltic Sea and the NorthSea takes several decades, the concentration of toxic substances is much higher in theBaltic Sea than in open seas and oceans. The main risks to the Baltic Sea’s coastal andmarine environment are (cf. HELCOM, 2007):
. Eutrophication: excessive nutrient inputs, originating from both diffuse sources(e.g. agriculture) and point sources (e.g. from sewage treatment plants), havedisrupted the natural balance of the Baltic Sea. Symptoms include algal bloomand marine dead zones on the seabed.
. Toxic substances: despite all efforts to reduce pollution, concentrations ofhazardous substances (mainly from industrial activities) remain high in the BalticSea. Levels of dioxins in fish, for example, are above EU safety levels forfoodstuffs.
. Biodiversity: natural characteristics limit the biodiversity of the Baltic Seaand make the ecosystem(s) exceptionally sensitive to pollution. The activities ofcommercial fisheries, offshore activities, and invasive species represent the mostimportant threats.
. Maritime activities: with the growth in the economies of the countries around theBaltic Sea, traffic in the Baltic Sea has intensified. This increases the pressure onthe marine environment and the risk of a potentially disastrous oil spill.
. Over-exploitation of marine resources: degraded water quality and over-fishinghas had an impact on the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea, and the recovery ofdepleted resources and damaged habitats requires cooperative actions.
Reducing these risks depends on the governing system of the Baltic Sea region.This system has changed considerably over time, in particular in the period since theend of the Cold War, which triggered a new wave of EU enlargement and eventuallytransformed the Baltic Sea into an (almost) internal sea of the European Union.However, the Helsinki Convention clearly shows that international environmentalcooperation started long before Poland and the three Baltic Republics becameindependent, were transformed into democratic market economies, and joined boththe European Union and NATO (Jacoby 2004; Schimmelfennig 2003).
For the Baltic Sea region, the Helsinki Convention was the first frameworkconvention to encompass all aspects of the maritime environment and its protection,and it remains outstanding in its scope today (Bruch 1999, p. 159). Given that theHelsinki Convention was the very first regional sea convention, it came as no surprisethat this international agreement soon became a model for other comparable regions.Moreover, the Helsinki Convention, and HELCOM as its governing body, can beregarded as the basis of a regional governing system for the sustainable developmentof the region because it remained the only integrative environmental institution at theregional level until the early 1990s.1
The end of the Cold War had profound repercussions on the governing systemof the Baltic Sea region and triggered the development of new forms of international,European, and transnational governance. Numerous new organizations were foundedin this period, including intergovernmental organizations, such as the Council ofBaltic Sea States (CBSS) (1992), transnational NGOs, such as the Coalition Clean
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Baltic (CCB) (1990), and transnational networks of subnational governments, suchas the Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC) (1991). Although such multi-functionalorganizations pursue a variety of goals, all of these organizations had environ-mental policy and sustainable development high on their political agenda from theoutset.
In addition to the establishment of new organizations in the phase of dynamicinstitution-building in the early1990s, existing organizations were transformed andadapted to the new situation. Thus, the Helsinki Convention gained four newsignatories (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and the European Community), while anothersignatory, the German Democratic Republic (GDR), disappeared from the map dueto German reunification. The founding of new organizations and the transformationof existing ones such as HELCOM demonstrate how the end of the Cold War changedthe regional governing system and had direct effects on environmental policy andsustainable development.
Shortly after the end of the Cold War, UNCED in Rio de Janeiro (1992) becamea second focusing event and shaped the debate on environmental policy andsustainable development in the region. Broad discussions on Agenda 21, in particularin the Nordic countries and Germany, followed and triggered not only the preparationof national sustainable development strategies (for example in Sweden), but also manyLocal Agenda 21 (LA 21) processes (Eckerberg 2001; Joas 2008; Rowe & Fudge2003). While the Nordic countries reacted shortly after the Rio conference, andsoon became international pioneers in the area of LA 21 implementation, LA 21processes in Germany gained momentum only several years later due to the structureof Germany’s federalist political system (Kern et al. 2007). However, the Rioconference resulted in the establishment of Baltic 21 (Baltic 21 2006), an Agenda 21process for the entire region, which was initiated by the Council of Baltic Sea States in1996. The development of Baltic 21 appears to be a unique feature of the region.Overall, it may be concluded that EU enlargement and Agenda 21 initiatives triggeredthe transformation of the regional governing system, which now involves a varietyof public and private actors at different levels, and improved the preconditions for theshift in the Baltic Sea region toward sustainable development.
Elements of the Governing System in the Baltic Sea Region
The governing system in the Baltic Sea region is constituted by four elements:
. the national governance systems of the riparian states still forms the basis for thesustainable development of the entire region;
. forms of international and intergovernmental environmental governance grad-ually developed from the 1970s;
. European governance is a newer phenomenon, which has gained momentumin recent years, in particular since the enlargement of the EU in 2004; and
. transnational governance, based on both civil society actors and sub-nationalgovernments, has provided fertile ground for the development and implemen-tation of innovative new forms of environmental governance.
24 JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
The analysis of the regional governing system and its capacity to improve theregion’s prospects toward sustainable development needs to take all four componentsand their interactions into account.
National governance for sustainable development
Because the region comprises three Nordic countries, reunited Germany, and fiveformer socialist countries (including Russia), national environmental governance inthe states surrounding the Baltic Sea varies considerably. While the Nordic countriesand (West) Germany have gained a well-deserved reputation as environmentalpioneers since the 1970s, in the new EU member states and in Russia thedevelopment of modern environmental policy had to start from a background ofcentrally planned economies, characterized by state-owned property, a one-partysystem, and a lack of public debate on social and political issues (for the Baltic statessee Joas et al. 2008; Kontio & Kuitto 2008).
Although policies may gradually converge, individual attitudes are slow to change.Hermanson (2008), for example, finds that although one can see a value shift towardmore post-materialist attitudes in advanced industrial societies, this shift is only visibleto a certain extent in the Baltic Sea region. In the Nordic countries and (West)Germany, environmental issues appeared on the political agenda as far back as the1970s and social movements started to influence decision-making, first at the locallevel and eventually at the national level. In Poland, the Baltic States, and Russia thepolitical institutionalization of environmental concerns started much later. Althoughenvironmental movements have played an important role in some CEE countries,the region is still divided into two distinct clusters of countries with regard toenvironmental/post-material values.
Moreover, the analysis of the relationship between economic and environmentalperformance reveals essential differences between the political systems within theregion. The relationship between economic growth and environmental pollutiondiffers between the Nordic countries and Germany, on the one hand, and the formersocialist states, on the other. In the latter group of countries, the decouplingof economic growth and environmental pollution occurred at a much earlier stage ofeconomic development (Jahn & Kuitto 2008).
The development of political institutions shows a similar pattern. While in theNordic countries and Germany, environmental governance and environmentalawareness evolved gradually and incrementally over several decades, the time-framefor such changes is considerable shorter in the new EU member states. EU influenceduring the accession phase became an essential driving force for the shift towardmodern environmental governing systems in the former socialist countries (Kontio &Kuitto 2008). This means that EU integration has facilitated the convergence ofenvironmental governance and environmental performance of the countriessurrounding the Baltic Sea, although marked differences remain and will persist formany years to come.
Although the EU and intergovernmental organizations such as the OECD havefacilitated the spread of new forms of environmental governance, traditional formsof environmental governance, such as the Swedish ban on phosphates in detergents,
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
still play an important role at the nation-state level and dominate many areas ofenvironmental policy. However, such hierarchical policy instruments may causecompliance problems and implementation deficits. If conservation goals can only befulfilled by restricting the existing and well-established activities of citizens who donot share these goals or the perception that their activities influence the pursuitof the goals, serious problems may arise and new forms of governance may berequired to solve the underlying conflicts. Stakeholder involvement may help in theattainment of a higher degree of legitimacy and understanding for environmentalregulation and create innovations designed to cope with the governance of complex,multi-level issues (cf. Varjopuro & Kettunen 2008).
International governance for sustainable development
Although there is a need for the development of horizontally and vertically integratedgoverning systems, which account for the interests and capacities of civil society actorsand subnational governments, nation-states still play the most important role ininternational environmental governance. While the cooperation between the Nordiccountries, which share many similarities, was institutionalized in the Nordic Council,the establishment of the Helsinki Convention, i.e. an attempt to foster internationalenvironmental cooperation between all of the riparian countries, was mainly driven byenvironmental concerns about increasing pollution levels in the Baltic Sea, althoughpolitical factors also played an essential role here (Rasanen & Laakkonen 2008).
HELCOM’s main goal is to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea fromall sources of pollution and to restore and safeguard its ecological balance. In 1974,the then seven Baltic coastal states signed a convention for the abatement of all sourcesof pollution around the Baltic Sea. The ratification process ended in 1980 and theconvention came into force in May of that year. Following the collapse of the SovietUnion, the reunification of Germany, and the gaining of independence by the threeBaltic States, the convention was revised, updated (in relation to the list of harmfulsubstances), and broadened in scope (e.g. now also encompassing inland waters,coastal zone management, and biodiversity). The new convention was signed by all ofthe nine states that border the Baltic Sea and by the European Community in 1992 andentered into force in January 2000. In order to reduce land-based pollution, measureswere extended to the whole drainage area of the Baltic Sea (Bruch 1999; Fitzmaurice1992; Hassler 2004; Kern & Loffelsend 2004).
The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) (HELCOM 2007) was adopted in2007 and now sets the framework for action. Its ambitious target is to restore a goodecological status to the Baltic marine environment by 2021. The plan incorporates thelatest scientific knowledge and innovative management approaches into its strategicpolicy implementation, and stimulates close goal-oriented multilateral cooperationaround the Baltic Sea region. The plan aims to resolve the existing problems, forexample the eutrophication and deterioration in the water quality of the Baltic Sea.The action plan mentions four priority areas (eutrophication; hazardous substances;biodiversity and nature conservation; and maritime activities). It also presents specificobjectives, such as reduction targets for nitrogen and phosphorus. In addition, theplan contains provisions for assessment tools and methodologies, awareness-raising
26 JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
and capacity-building, funding, and the implementation and review of the plan(HELCOM 2007).
This action plan is remarkable for several reasons: first, it is based on anecosystem approach, i.e. the usual sectoral pollution-reduction approach was replacedby a cross-sectoral approach that starts from the vision of a healthy sea with a goodecological status. The need for further reductions in pollution loads can be derivedand the scope of human activities determined from this vision. Second, the planemphasizes a broader view of sustainable development and thus combines ecologicalsustainability and a healthy environment with aspects of sustainable socio-economicdevelopment. Third, the plan is the result of the active participation of all majorstakeholder groups in the region, i.e. the shared vision of a healthy Baltic Sea hasbeen defined together with all relevant stakeholders. This decision-making procedurewas chosen to ensure that the plan is truly relevant and can be implementedeffectively. Fourth, the BSAP starts from a multi-level approach and thus distinguishesbetween measures that can be implemented at the national level, at the EU level(e.g. Common Fisheries Policy, Common Agricultural Policy), and at the global level(e.g. shipping control by the International Maritime Organization).
European governance for sustainable development
In addition to international governance, EU enlargement also had an impressiveimpact on national environmental governance and triggered crucial changes in theregional governing system. The influence of the Nordic countries on the EuropeanUnion was strengthened with the enlargement of 1995 when Sweden and Finlandjoined. The EU enlargement of 2004 was probably even more important for theregion, because with this wave of enlargement the Baltic Sea became (almost) aninternal sea of the European Union. Today, only the Russian oblast of Leningrad(with the metropolitan city of St. Petersburg) and the Russian enclave of Kaliningradremain outside the EU.
The Europeanization of the region has arisen due to both economic and politicalfactors. Europeanization can be regarded as co-evolution between the domestic andEuropean level (Radaelli 2006, p. 59) because it combines top-down and bottom-upapproaches. However, enlargement can be described as a top-down process as it putscandidate countries under extreme pressure. The EU strongly influenced Poland,Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in the pre-accession phase. Although financialinstruments also played an important role here, these countries were not allowedto join the Union before complying with the acquis communautaire, i.e. the entire bodyof EU legislation. This process of ‘governance by conditionality’ (Schimmelfennig &Sedelmeier 2004) led to a relatively high degree of compliance in the area ofenvironmental policy (Andonova 2005; Joas et al. 2008).
Soon after Finland and Sweden joined the European Union, the Finnishgovernment initiated the ‘Northern Dimension’ as a regional EU strategy whichestablished a partnership between the EU, Norway, Iceland, and Russia. This showsthat the activities of the EU in the region have both an internal dimension (concerningthe member states) and an external dimension (concerning the neighboringcountries). In 2006, the Northern Dimension was transformed into a common
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
regional policy. The new Northern Dimension has four geographical priorities(Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad, the Barents Seas, and the Arctic). The program has a ratherbroad scope, placing a strong emphasis on environmental issues. This initiativeincludes the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP), which wasestablished in 2001 by various international financial institutions.
Most recently the EU started a new initiative that aims to develop an ‘EU Strategyfor the Baltic Sea region’. This approach concentrates on four goals: to make theBaltic Sea region (i) an environmentally sustainable place; (ii) a prosperous place;(iii) an accessible and attractive place; and (iv) a safe and secure place. A stakeholderseminar took place in Gdansk (Poland) in autumn 2008, which focused specifically onthe question as to how the Baltic Sea region could be made into an environmentallysustainable place. There was wide agreement that the EU Strategy for the BalticSea region should facilitate the implementation of HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan.The Strategy was published by the European Commission in June 2009, first stepstoward its implementation have been taken already, and a report to the Council is duein June 2011 (European Union 2010).
Apart from these specific programs for the Baltic Sea region the EU has alsodeveloped more general programs for all regional seas in Europe which are crucial tothe sustainable development of the Baltic Sea region. For example, the EUCommission proposed a Marine Strategy Framework Directive in 2005, which wasfinally adopted in June 2008. The aim of this directive is to protect the marineenvironment across Europe, to achieve a good environmental status of the EU’smarine waters by 2021, and to protect the resources on which marine-relatedeconomic and social activities depend. The directive constitutes the environmentalcomponent of the Union’s future maritime policy, which is designed to enable thefulfillment of the economic potential of oceans and seas in harmony with the marineenvironment. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive establishes marine regionson the basis of geographical and environmental criteria and requires that MemberStates in all regional seas bordered by the EU ensure cooperation with all countrieswithin a marine region and develop national strategies for their marine waters. Thesestrategies must contain a detailed assessment of the state of the environment,a definition of ‘good environmental status’ at the regional level, and the establishmentof clear environmental targets and monitoring programs. The EU has acknowledgedthat HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan could become instrumental to the successfulimplementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Transnational governance for sustainable development
Apart from Europeanization the most striking characteristic of the Baltic Sea regionis its high degree of transnationalization (Kern et al. 2008), which has provided afertile ground for other forms of transborder cooperation in the region. After the endof the Cold War, the Baltic Sea region developed into a highly dynamic area of cross-border cooperation and transnational networking. Numerous new organizations,often based on hybrid arrangements (including governmental, sub-national, andnon-governmental actors) (Joas et al. 2007, p. 241), have focused their initiatives onenvironmental policy and sustainable development initiatives.
28 JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Transnational links have always existed in the Baltic Sea region. These linkshave certainly contributed to the development of initiatives which aim to promotethe sustainable development of the Baltic Sea region, including both subnationalgovernments (regions, local authorities) and civil society actors. Three different formsof transnationalization exist in the Baltic Sea region. First, traditional international andintergovernmental organizations such as HELCOM have been transformed in recentyears. As the development of HELCOM’s Baltic Sea Action Plan shows, access todecision-making has improved for non-governmental and subnational actors. Second,new types of organizations have been established which aim to introduce non-governmental and subnational actors into the policy-making process. An outstandingexample is Baltic 21, which was based from the outset on a multi-stakeholderapproach and the active participation of civil society. Third, transnational networks,such as the Coalition Clean Baltic and the Union of the Baltic Cities, have workedintensively on sustainability and environmental issues.
The regional cooperation of subnational governments can be traced back to theHanseatic League. The cooperation between Hanseatic League cities, and in particularthe twinning relationships between these cities, even survived the Cold War period.The Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC), a transnational city network with morethan 100 member cities around the Baltic Sea, developed relatively spontaneouslysoon after the fall of the Berlin Wall (Groth 2001; UBC 2008). The main goals of citynetworks such as the UBC are: (i) best practice transfer and learning among theirmembers; and (ii) representation and lobbying. City networks run projects whichestablish direct links between their member cities and facilitate both transboundarypolicy transfer and the joint development of innovative solutions. The UBC’s Agenda21 Action Program certainly helped to spread LA 21 processes in the region.Transnational networks are also created to bypass nation-states and to establishdirect links between such networks and EU institutions (Kern & Bulkeley 2009).The cooperation between subnational governments in the region appears to be arather unique feature of the Baltic Sea area (Kern et al. 2008).
Challenges Ahead
Although it appears that the Baltic Sea region has made better progress towardsustainable development than other regional sea areas, the different elements of theregional governing system and their interaction may lead to boundary problems and alack of horizontal and vertical interaction and coordination.
Boundaries of the Baltic Sea region
Governing regional seas requires the establishment of a governing system for theentire region. In addition to being difficult to determine, the boundaries ofecosystems are not always compatible with and seldom identical to those of politicaland administrative systems. This is most evident in relation to the drainage basin ofthe Baltic Sea, which is four times larger than the sea itself. Although countries suchas Belarus have observer status in several regional environmental institutions, theinclusion of such states in the governing structure poses considerable problems.
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Even if they attend important meetings, they do not have any obligations to complywith the decisions made by the signatories of an international treaty or by the EUinstitutions for its Member States.
European integration has changed the geopolitical situation in the regionfundamentally and has simultaneously facilitated the emergence of a more appropriategoverning system. Serious problems remain, although the Baltic Sea is almost entirelysurrounded by EU Member States. St. Petersburg is the biggest metropolitan city inthe region, and the situation of the Russian enclave Kaliningrad, a product of bothWWII and the breakup of the Soviet Union, poses serious problems for thedevelopment of a strong governing system. Governing the Baltic Sea region depends,therefore, not only on decisions made by regional institutions, but also on bothEU–Russia relations and Russia’s bilateral relations with individual EU member states.The recent debate on energy security and its repercussions for the Baltic Sea region,and the debate on the Nord Stream pipeline project in particular, shows clearly thatthe positions of individual member states differ considerably.
Moreover, decisions made in Brussels may not always fully consider the situationin the region and, therefore, need to be adjusted to regional conditions. Contrary toEU policies targeting all Member States, the scope of HELCOM and Baltic 21 appearsto be more appropriate in this respect because these regional environmentalinstitutions focus on the entire region, including Russia. However, the EU initiativefor the development of macro-regional strategies (Baltic Sea region, Danube region,Adriatic region) points to a more regionalized version of European integration, whichmay strengthen regional governing systems and facilitate the evolution towardsustainable development.
Horizontal interaction and coordination
The existing governing system of the Baltic Sea region is characterized by horizontalinteraction (cf. Gehring & Oberthur 2008; Young 2002), which requires a certaindegree of coordination to avoid overlap. This is evident in the case of HELCOMand Baltic 21 because both organizations focus on similar issues. However, Baltic21 appears to be broader in focus than HELCOM because Baltic 21 was stimulated bythe Rio conference and aims to support the region’s shift toward sustainabledevelopment. In contrast, due to its origin and establishment at a time whensustainable development did not yet feature on the political agenda, the original focusof the Helsinki Convention was primarily concentrated on environmental issues.The development of the Baltic Sea Action Plan, however, reflects a new trend towardthe convergence of both approaches. HELCOM has now broadened its scope andchosen a perspective which is based on the idea of sustainable development.Moreover, the Baltic Sea Action Plan is the result of intensive stakeholder participationprocesses. HELCOM and Baltic 21 coexisted and competed, for a couple of years, butmore recently HELCOM has become dominant, while Baltic 21 has been weakenedconsiderably.
Coordination problems may also result from the increasing Europeanization of theBaltic Sea region because all of the riparian states (except Russia) are now directlyinfluenced by decisions made in Brussels. Thus, the implementation of the European
30 JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Union’s agricultural and fisheries policies, the implementation of the Marine StrategyFramework Directive, and the development of the EU Strategy on the Baltic SeaRegion require close coordination with the approaches chosen by HELCOM, inparticular the implementation of its Baltic Sea Action Plan. The dynamic developmentof a variety of new organizations in the Baltic Sea region may lead to institutionaloverlaps and serious problems if several organizations focus on the same issue and donot coordinate their approaches.
Vertical interaction and coordination
Moreover, the vertical interaction of regional environmental institutions and a lackof vertical coordination may have negative effects on the regional governing systemand limit its capacities. Vertical coordination is needed because the multi-level systemof the Baltic Sea region cannot be governed solely by hierarchical structures.Alongside horizontal interaction between organizations active in the Baltic Sea region,vertical interaction, including intergovernmental relations within nation-states, areof special interest for the governing system of the Baltic Sea region. The resolution ofvertical coordination problems in the Baltic Sea region requires the development of avertically integrated multi-level governing system.
The levels of governance in the Baltic Sea region cannot be considered as partsof a stable hierarchical structure from a multi-level governance perspective. Instead,the dynamic of a multi-level system may result in a shift of competencies, for exampleupward from national governments to the European Union and downward to regionsand cities (Pierre & Peters 2000, p. 77; Rosamond 2010; Rosenau, 2003). In the caseof the Baltic Sea region, evidence can be found for the successful integration ofsubnational governments in the implementation of the Helsinki Convention.
The debate on multi-level governance has shown that top-down and bottom-upperspectives need to be integrated if we want to govern a dynamic multi-level systemlike the Baltic Sea region. An example is the development of LA 21 processes thatemerged from the Rio conference and led to initiatives in many countries aroundthe Baltic Sea (Joas 2008), i.e. the global Agenda 21 initiative stimulated localinnovations and experiments in many places around the Baltic Sea. Moreover, BalticSea cities such as Stockholm have not only established their own offices in Brussels andinfluence on European politics, they are also members of transnational networks suchas the Union of the Baltic Cities, which has become an active player at both theregional and the European levels. Cross-level institutional arrangements such asthe UBC can be seen as boundary or bridging organizations (Cash et al. 2006, p. 8)because they play an intermediary role between different arenas and levels.
Conclusions
Although various links exist between national, international, European, andtransnational governance, research has hitherto focused primarily on specificenvironmental institutions (such as the Helsinki Convention), thereby neglectingthe analysis of the Baltic Sea region as a multi-level system. Recent developmentsshow, however, that institutional interactions and overlaps exist, for instance between
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 31
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
HELCOM’s new Baltic Sea Action Plan, on the one hand, and various EU policies,on the other (e.g. EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and EU Strategy forthe Baltic Sea Region). The main challenges that the regional governing system in theBaltic Sea region faces today are related to the boundaries of the governing system andthe horizontal and vertical interaction of the regional environmental institutions.
Thus, it may be concluded that, first, national governance can still be consideredthe backbone of the regional governing system, despite the fact that nationalgovernments have become more and more involved in, and dependent on,international and European policy-making. Governance for sustainable developmentin the Baltic Sea region undoubtedly requires a combination of national governancewith forms of governance beyond the nation-state. In this respect, transnationalnetworks of non-governmental and subnational actors provide promising newapproaches that can complement traditional forms of governance. Furthermore,bilateral relations between the countries in the Baltic Sea region need to be taken intoaccount because they constitute an important part of the regional governing system.
Second, cooperation at the international and the European levels fostersconvergence, but differences remain, in particular when countries start from verydifferent positions, as, for example, Sweden and Poland. International andintergovernmental environmental governance began relatively early in the Baltic Searegion. Since its establishment the Helsinki Convention passed through differentdevelopment stages. Most striking in this respect is the increasing inclusion ofstakeholders in decision-making. Shortcomings remain, however, as clearly demon-strated by the ongoing discussion on the integration of HELCOM’s Baltic Sea ActionPlan and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.
Third, problems related to horizontal interaction not only provide evidence of theneed to analyze such horizontal interactions more thoroughly, they also point to thechanging role of the EU, which has become an important, if not the most important,player in the Baltic Sea region. The Europeanization of the region has graduallyincreased over time and this process is likely to continue in the future. The EU haschosen a combination of internal and external policies for governing the region.While the EU’s internal policies concentrate on its Member States, its externalpolicies focus on neighboring countries and, in particular, Russia. Furthermore, thetension between Europeanization and regionalization has led to the developmentof macro-regional strategies such as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Thisstrategy may not only help to resolve boundary problems, but may also provide toolsfor managing horizontal interactions.
Fourth, transnational governance is a unique feature of the region because similararrangements cannot be found in other comparable regions. In the Baltic Sea regionwe find both an active civil society and cross-nationally oriented cities and regions,which can help to complement traditional forms of governance. Recent initiativessuch as the development of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and the EU Strategy for theBaltic Sea Region, which have both relied on various forms of multi-stakeholderparticipation, show that these assets can be utilized to improve the legitimacy of suchplans and strategies and may even support their implementation. Such an approachmay also help to solve problems that relate to the need for stronger verticalcoordination. Existing institutional arrangements, such as transnational networks
32 JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
of subnational governments, Euroregions, and EU-funded projects (e.g. Interregprojects) could be utilized even better to strengthen the regional governing system.
It may be concluded, therefore, that the progression of the Baltic Sea regiontoward sustainable development depends on widening the scope of existingenvironmental programs and strengthening the regional governing system, whichneeds to become more integrated, both horizontally and vertically. The increasingEuropeanization of the region requires that the EU, first, balances and integrates itsown policies and, second, coordinates them with other regional (environmental)institutions, namely the Helsinki Convention and its Baltic Sea Action Plan. Moreover,the EU will have to focus its initiatives even more intensively on subnationalgovernments. Even though most EU legislation and essential provisions ofinternational agreements are eventually implemented at local and regional levels,the latter’s role in the sustainable development of the Baltic Sea region has long beenneglected. If the main actors in the region master these challenges, the Baltic Searegion may serve as a model for other comparable regions, both in Europe andthroughout the world.
Note
1 The International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission, which was founded in 1973and ceased to function in 2006, may be regarded as an exception. The mainobjective of the Commission was to preserve and increase the living resourcesof the Baltic Sea, and to obtain optimum yield.
References
Andonova, L. (2005) ‘The Europeanization of Environmental Policy in Central EasternEurope’, in Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (eds) (2005) The Europeanization ofCentral and Eastern Europe (Ithaca, Cornell University Press).
Baltic 21 (2006) Realising a Common Vision of a Baltic Sea Eco-Region, Baltic 21 Report2003–2005, Baltic 21 Series No. 1/2006 (Stockholm, Baltic 21 Secretariat).
Bruch, J. (1999) Umweltkooperation im Ostseeraum, PhD thesis (Mainz, Johann-GutenbergUniversity).
Cash, D., Adger, N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Prichard, L. & Young,O. (2006) ‘Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in aMultilevel World’, Ecology and Society, 11, p. 2.
European Union (2010) The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Background andAnalysis, May 2010 (Luxemburg, European Union).
Eckerberg, K. (2001) ‘Sweden. Problems and prospects at the leading edge of LocalAgenda 21 implementation’, in Lafferty, W. (ed.) (2001) Sustainable Communities inEurope (London, Earthscan).
Fitzmaurice, M. (1992) International Legal Problems of the Environmental Protection of the BalticSea (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff/Graham & Trotman).
Gehring, T. & Oberthur, S. (2008) ‘Interplay: Exploring Institutional Interaction’,in Young, O., King, L. & Schroeder, H. (eds) (2008) Institutions and
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 33
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Environmental Change. Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers(Cambridge/London, MIT Press).
Groth, N. (2001) Cities and Networking: The Baltic Sea Region, Report No. 8–2001(Horsholm, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning).
Hassler, B. (2004) ‘Protecting the Baltic Sea: The Helsinki Convention andNational Interests’, Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment andDevelopment 2003/04.
HELCOM (2007) HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, HELCOM Ministerial Meeting. Krakow,Poland, 15 November 2007.
Hermanson, A.-S. (2008) ‘Environmental Concerns within the Baltic Sea Region:A Nordic Baltic Comparison’, in Joas, M., Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008)Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region (London &Sterling, Earthscan).
Jacoby, W. (2004) The Enlargement of the European Union and NATO. Ordering from the Menuin Central Europe (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Jahn, D. & Kuitto, K. (2008) ‘Environmental Pollution and Economic Performance in theBaltic Sea Region’, in Joas, M., Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008) Governing aCommon Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region (London & Sterling,Earthscan).
Jentoft, S. (2007) ‘Limits of Governability: Institutional Implications for Fisheries andCoastal Governance’, Marine Policy, 31, p. 4.
Jentoft, S., van Son, T. C. & Bjørkan, M. (2007) ‘Marine Protected Areas: A GovernanceSystem Analysis’, Human Ecology, 35, p. 5.
Joas, M. (2008) ‘Local Governance for Sustainable Development: Local Agenda 21 in theBaltic Sea Region’, in Joas, M., Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008) Governing aCommon Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region (London & Sterling,Earthscan).
Joas, M., Kern, K. & Sandberg, S. (2007) ‘Actors and Arenas in Hybrid Networks:Implications for Environmental Policymaking in the Baltic Sea Region’, Ambio, 36,pp. 2–3.
Joas, M., Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008) Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policiesin the Baltic Sea Region (London & Sterling, Earthscan).
Kern, K. & Bulkeley, H. (2009) ‘Cities, Europeanization and Multi-level Governance:Governing Climate Change through Transnational Municipal Networks’, Journal ofCommon Market Studies, 47, p. 2.
Kern, K. & Loffelsend, T. (2004) ‘Sustainable Development in the Baltic Sea Region.Governance beyond the Nation State’, Local Environment, 9, p. 5.
Kern, K., Koll, C. & Schophaus, M. (2007) ‘The Diffusion of Local Agenda 21 inGermany: Comparing the German Federal States’, Environmental Politics, 16, p. 4.
Kern, K., Joas, M. & Jahn, D. (2008) ‘Introduction – Governing a Common Sea’, in Joas,M., Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008) Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policiesin the Baltic Sea Region (London & Sterling, Earthscan).
Kooiman, J. (2008) ‘Exploring the Concept of Governability’, Journal of Comparative PolicyAnalysis, 10, p. 2.
Kontio, P. & Kuitto, K. (2008) ‘Environmental Governance in the Baltic States: Lithuania,Latvia and Estonia’, in Joas, M., Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008) Governing aCommon Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region (London & Sterling,Earthscan).
34 JOURNAL OF BALTIC STUDIES
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Pierre, J. & Peters, B. G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State (Houndmills, MacmillanPress).
Radaelli, C. (2006) ‘Europeanization: Solution or Problem?’, in Cini, M. & Bourne, A.(eds) (2006) Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies (Houndmills & New York,Palgrave Macmillan).
Rasanen, T. & Laakkonen, S. (2008) ‘Institutionalization of an InternationalEnvironmental Policy Regime: The Helsinki Convention, Finland and the ColdWar’, in Joas, M., Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008) Governing a Common Sea.Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region (London & Sterling, Earthscan).
Rosamond, B. (2010) ‘New Theories of European Integration’, in Cini, M. (ed.) (2010)European Union Politics 3rd (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Rosenau, J. (2003) Distant Proximities. Dynamics beyond Globalization (Princeton, PrincetonUniversity Press).
Rowe, J. & Fudge, C. (2003) ‘Linking National Sustainable Development Strategy andLocal Implementation: A Case Study in Sweden’, Local Environment, 8, p. 2.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2003) The EU, NATO and the Integration of Europe. Rules and Rhetoric(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Schimmelfennig, F. & Sedelmeier, U. (2004) ‘Governance by Conditionality: EU RuleTransfer to the Candidate Countries of Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal ofEuropean Public Policy, 11, p. 4.
Union of the Baltic Cities (2008) Report from the IX General Conference, Parnu (Estonia),September 27–28 2007 (Gdansk, UBC).
Varjopuro, R. & Kettunen, A. (2008) ‘Regional Actors Caught Between Local Livelihoodand International Conservation: Grey Seal Conservation Controversy’, in Joas, M.,Jahn, D. & Kern, K. (eds) (2008) Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policies in theBaltic Sea Region (London & Sterling, Earthscan).
Young, O. (2002) The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay, and Scale(Cambridge and London, MIT Press).
Kristine Kern is Universitair Docent at Wageningen University (The Netherlands) and
Associate Professor at Abo Akademi University (Finland). After earning her PhD in
Political Science from the Freie Universitat Berlin in 1998, she worked as Senior
Research Associate at the Social Science Research Center Berlin (Germany) until 2005
and held positions as Visiting Professor at the University of Minnesota (USA) (2005-2007)
and Sodertorn University (Sweden) (2007-2008). In fall 2008 she joined the Environmental
Policy Group at Wageningen University. In recent years her research interests have
concentrated on (environmental) governance of multi-level systems, climate and energy
governance, governance of sustainable cities and regions, environmental governance of
regional seas, and risk governance ([email protected]).
GOVERNANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
4:24
19
Dec
embe
r 20
14
