Elsevier

Marine Policy

Volume 86, December 2017, Pages 206-213
Marine Policy

Benefits and impediments for the integrated and coordinated management of European seas

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.035Get rights and content

Abstract

New multi-sectoral policies with a regional implementation are developed when maritime states recognise the importance of managing the marine environment under an ecosystem-perspective rather than a use-perspective. In Europe, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is the first attempt to promote an integrated management of the seas from the coastline to the limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone. This paper shows that, nine years from the MSFD adoption, there remain several ecological, economic, social and governance challenges. Using information gathered in a dedicated survey of the European Union Marine Strategy Coordination Group and in the recent literature the paper identifies the obstacles preventing a successful regional cooperation and policy integration. The survey indicates that the MSFD coordination structures are, in general, well-developed but there is an apparent lack of political will to coordinate actions at the regional level. Member States request greater flexibility to implement the Directive but they put their national interests before the benefit of a coherent and integrated approach for the entire region. Differences in budget, economic sector predominance, lack of staff and the MSFD short time-scale are identified as the factors that can hamper cooperation. These have produced recommendations of possible strategies for optimising regional coordination structures which respect the subsidiarity principle underpinning the MSFD.

Introduction

Maritime states are facing new challenges worldwide and adopting an integrated and coordinated marine management urgently requires marine legislation [12]. The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention Agenda 21 calls for “new approaches to marine and coastal area management and development, at the national, sub-regional and global levels, approaches that are integrated in content and precautionary and anticipatory in ambit”.1 An integrated marine governance approach has been adopted when coastal countries replaced sectoral policies with new policies that regulate a wide range of socio-economic activities [12]. At the same time, transboundary management is more effective at the level of large marine ecosystems and/or sea regions [34], resulting in several structures and platforms being developed at the regional sea level. Regional marine management has existed since the 1970s, with the European Regional Seas Conventions (RSC) (the Barcelona, Bucharest, Helsinki and Oslo and Paris Conventions) which clearly express the commitment and political will of governments to tackle their common environmental issues through joint coordinated activities.2 These RSC were designed initially to address mainly the impact of pollution but they did not regulate fisheries [34] and shipping and only recently have they been extended to include the protection of biodiversity. The same trend was observed in European Union (EU) policies, which moved from a sectoral to a more holistic marine management approach (i.e. managing the whole system rather than individual sectors such as shipping, energy, etc.); for example, this change is reflected in adopting the Water Framework Directive and other Framework Directives [5]. The Clean Water and Oceans Acts in the US have similar aims [38].

Marine management has long accommodated a vertical hierarchy of governance from the local to the global [20], [5] and ecosystem governance (regarded here as the combination of policies, politics, administration and legislation) should be pluricentric where arrangements are taken at local, national and supra-national levels (see [42], [49], [29]; Van Kersbergen, van Waarden [51]), while characterised by non-hierarchical methods of control [40]. There has been a mismatch between ecological and management scales in the highly connected marine ecological components and systems and addressing this mismatch requires similarly-connected governance. Some of the consequences of this mismatch have led to the decline of fish stocks [55], alteration of food webs, biodiversity loss, increasing pollution [32] and, more generally, the loss of future economic opportunities [15]. For example, in Europe, the Common Fisheries Policy provided strong institutional tools at the central EU level for fisheries management but this has not led to sustainable fisheries exploitation [28]. At its last reform, the efficiency and legitimacy of the Common Fisheries Policy aims to benefit from a regional implementation where the decision-making process takes place at a level closer to the specific fisheries [44].

Achieving integrated management is not straightforward, since sectoral policies have a specific set of governance arrangements, different economic strengths and political influence [43], [54]. Moreover, maritime activities occur at different spatial levels, from fixed structures (e.g. oil and gas extraction) to temporary and mobile activities (e.g. fishing and shipping) that occupy the three dimensional marine space [53].

Despite these difficulties, successful policy integration and international cooperation brings many benefits from ecological, political and socio-economic perspectives. For example, it is essential to address and prevent the impact of diffuse pollution (e.g. caused by shipping), as well as to manage many fish stocks whose distribution is larger than a single Exclusive Economic Zone [24]. Economic benefits can be achieved with lower costs if cost-effectiveness is analysed across countries (see e.g. [36]) and management measures will be more effective if and when coordinated across national borders [2], [28].

The political advantages of a coordinated implementation of environmental policies are related to the effectiveness of the structures and networks that are used to overcome conflicts among marine sectors as well as negotiate political decisions among governments. These structures are more valuable if all the parties have the opportunities to discuss their positions from an early stage [32] and throughout the whole implementation process [1].

This paper identifies the obstacles to the effective coordination and integrated implementation of marine policies which are essential to achieve the ecosystem management of maritime activities. To do so, the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [35] and its coordination structures at the European level are used as an example. In particular, the analysis here investigates the effectiveness of existing coordination structures that support countries in the implementation of the MSFD and evaluates whether it is possible to implement the Directive in a coordinated way given the diversity in marine habitats as well as political and socio-economic landscapes within the four regions identified in the Directive – the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the North-East Atlantic Ocean. Therefore, an on-line survey was developed covering the basis of the main weaknesses identified by the European Commission [8,[17], [16], [19] and RSC reports in relation to the implementation of the MSFD.

The MSFD is one of the directives approved in 2008 by European Member States in the context of the Integrated Maritime Policy3 to foster collaboration between countries to improve the status of the marine environment by 2020. This framework was the result of an extensive consultation initiated in December 2002 with stakeholders and actors from EU and non-EU countries [31], [33], to identify best practices for marine management and exchange experiences. The results of the consultation were included by the Commission in the Proposal of the MSFD of the European Parliament and of the Council ([11] 505 final). Some Member States were against the interference of the EU in marine affairs and many were concerned about a binding regional approach. Eventually, it was established that each country should define Good Environmental Status (GES) for their waters [3], [34] and that such definitions will be assessed by the European Commission to ensure a coherent and coordinated regional implementation of the MSFD. The framework has been transposed into national legislation by specific marine strategies, whose preparation started with the assessment of the characteristics of marine waters (Article 8) including a detailed study of the main pressures and impacts and an economic and social analysis. On the basis of such an assessment, Member States defined what they considered GES of their marine waters (Article 9) and established a set of environmental targets to achieve it (Article 10). During the period 2015–2016, Member States developed and implemented Programmes of Measures to achieve GES (Article 13). These steps will be revised and repeated during the second 6-year cycle (starting in 2018) based on the previous experience gained.

Section snippets

Survey of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group

The Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) was considered the most suitable group of experts to be surveyed as it is a platform of the Common Implementation Strategy where representatives of the Member States, stakeholders, international organisations, NGOs, European Commission (EC) and RSC gather to discuss their concerns, identify best practices and produce guidelines in support of a coherent implementation of the Directive ([17]). The MSCG is also responsible for coordinating and

Results

From the 52 invited participants of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group, 27 took part in the survey (a response level of 52%, Table 2). The ANOSIM test (Table 3) showed that the participant category had no influence in the responses provided in the survey. The results of the qualitative responses (open answers/comments) also did not follow a clear pattern either within each of the three categories or within the regions.

When the participants were asked to rank the four coordination structures

Discussion

At its adoption in 2008, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive set a governance challenge of historical importance for European environmental policy [52]. It represented the first attempt to implement ecosystem management at the level of European regional seas [43], [54] and the lessons learned during its implementation process can be valuable in using the Ecosystem Approach for managing other marine areas worldwide. This survey here identified the impediments to a coherent and harmonious

Conclusions

Coordination structures proved to be effective as fora to exchange information and identify best-practice, and in turn enabled the parties to make large efforts to meet some of the principles at the basis of ecosystem management. However, they are not sufficient to achieve a coherent implementation of the MSFD without a stronger political commitment of all the parties to collaborate. Moreover, it has been shown that national strategies will benefit from a better integration of the work already

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the University of Vigo (Spain) and partly from the DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project funded by the European Union Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration, ‘The Ocean of Tomorrow’ Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), www.devotes-project.eu. Thanks are also due, for the financial support, to CESAM (UID/AMB/50017/2013), supported

References (56)

  • N. Maier

    Coordination and cooperation in the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the US National Ocean Policy

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2014)
  • L.D. Mee et al.

    How good is good? Human values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2008)
  • K. Ounanian et al.

    On unequal footing: stakeholder perspectives on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive as a mechanism of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management

    Mar. Policy

    (2012)
  • J. Raakjaer et al.

    Ecosystem-based marine management in European regional seas calls for nested governance structures and coordination — a policy brief

    Mar. Policy

    (2014)
  • L. Van Hoof et al.

    Sometimes you cannot make it on your own; drivers and scenarios for regional cooperation in implementing the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

    Mar. Policy

    (2014)
  • J. Van Leeuwen et al.

    Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a policy perspective on regulatory, institutional and stakeholder impediments on effective implementation

    Mar. Policy

    (2014)
  • J.P.M. Van Tatenhove

    How to turn the tide: developing legitimate marine governance arrangements at the level of the regional seas

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2013)
  • E. Wollenberg et al.

    Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2000)
  • G. Borrini-Feyerabend, M. Pimbert, T. Farvar, A. Kothari, Y. Renard, Sharing power: learning by doing in co-management...
  • CIS, 2013. Common implementation strategy for the marine strategy framework directive. Learning the lessons and...
  • K.R. Clarke

    Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure

    Aust. J. Ecol.

    (1993)
  • K.R. Clarke, R.N. Gorley, PRIMERv7: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK, 296. pp,...
  • COM, 505 final. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for...
  • T. Dietz et al.

    The struggle to govern the commons

    Science

    (2003)
  • J. Dogterom

    10 Transboundary Rivers in Europe: Assessment Practices and Environmental Status

    (2001)
  • A.M. Duda

    Integrated coastal management in North America: an introduction to challenges facing our planet's ocean-land interface

    Ocean Coast. Law J.

    (2004)
  • EC

    Staff Working Document. The First Phase of Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) – SWD (2014)49 final

    (2014)
  • E.C. Annex

    Staff Working Document. Accompanying the Document. Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament. The First Phase of Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) – SWD (2014)49 final

    (2014)
  • Cited by (18)

    • Application of a risk-based approach to continuous underwater noise at local and subregional scales for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

      2021, Marine Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      As a result, the application of marine strategies in the first cycle occurred principally at a national level, making inter-comparisons of datasets or approaches very difficult [8,9] and creating a significant barrier to effective implementation (e.g. [6,9]). This apparent resistance to collaboration amongst MS may itself be driven by a lack of time, funds and expertise [7,9]. In some cases, assessments need to be to be made on elements for which the evidence is inconclusive, and for which data collection to improve the knowledge base is prohibitively expensive.

    • Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Macaronesia and synergies with the Maritime Spatial Planning process

      2020, Marine Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, Elliott [18] and Elliott et al. [19,20] analyzed the institutional and governance challenges behind an integrated approach in the management of marine resources. On the other hand, Cavallo et al. [21,22] identified the differences among national strategies of the countries of the North-East Atlantic region and highlighted the need to adopt a coherent and coordinated implementation of the MSFD across borders. Governance aspects related to a regional approach to this Directive have also been studied, and many recommendations have been proposed to overcome the problems identified in the first cycle of implementation of the MSFD [23–27].

    • Assessment level and time scales of biodiversity indicators in the scope of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive – A case study for the NE Atlantic

      2019, Ecological Indicators
      Citation Excerpt :

      This political de-synchronization in MSFD implementation contrasts with EBA concept, since the assessment of ecosystems status and anthropogenic pressures should be detached from political borders and should rely in cooperation within RSC and Biogeographic Region. Even though factors behind reporting differences have been widely identified (e.g. MSs politics, policies, funding and even the distinct usage of maritime space (Cavallo et al., 2017)), the present work discloses the factors behind temporal patterns and highlights aspects that need to be addressed to improve MSFD reporting: 1) unbalanced reporting – each Marine sub-unit is working separately; 2) temporal incongruence due to the use of historical and opportunistic data, and 3) unsynchronized time spans even if using similar data from identical monitoring programs established by previous directives (e.g. CFP, Habitats Directive, etc.). In conclusion, reporting level and time scales used to report biodiversity descriptors in the NE Atlantic Ocean indicate low cooperation and integration of MSs data within Biogeographic Regions, not only in terms of implementation but also in terms of monitoring networks and selection of datasets to assess GES.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text