![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Unclear, contested definitions and high complexity have been used to explain why ecosystem-based management (EBM) has been hard to implement. This still seems to be a problem, judging from the unspecific references to it in recent international instruments and other approaches being preferred. This article argues that an essential definition of EBM that captures its indispensable roles can clarify its meaning. Beyond that, a wide diversity can be found due to adaptations to different ecological, social, and political contexts. In short, EBM entails managing human activities for sustainable use, so the cumulative impacts of uses are kept below critical thresholds for the ecosystem to be managed. The specific integrative role of EBM is integration across ecosystem components, governance arrangements, and broad strands of knowledge in support of management. This understanding should not be controversial and is supported by approaches to implementing EBM in Norway and the EU. Their approaches to EBM for the oceans share key characteristics: They operate on similar spatial scales; use strategic planning; define cyclic, adaptive processes with similar content; and apply management by objectives. With the proclaimed nature crisis, renewed attention to the definition and implementation of EBM is needed.
Acknowledgments
The research has been supported by the Fram Centre program “Sustainable Development of the Arctic Ocean” (SUDARCO, Cristin-ID 2551323), and the Horizon Europe project “Coherent and cross-compliant ocean governance for delivering the EU Green Deal for European Seas” (CrossGov, No 101060958). I am grateful for the opportunity to present a first version of this article at a conference organized by the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea (NCLOS), 23–24 November 2022, and for critical comments and constructive suggestions to previous drafts from Lena Schøning at the NCLOS, Froukje Platjouw, Laura Friedrich, and Adam Jon Andrews at NIVA, two anonymous reviewers, and Karen Scott, editor-in-chief of Ocean Development & International Law.
Notes
1 United Nations conference on environment and development, Rio de de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992: Agenda 21, section 17.1.
2 “The terms ecosystem-based management and ecosystem approach are often used interchangeably, and they mean generally the same thing.” UNEP, Taking Steps toward Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management: An Introductory Guide (United Nations Environmental Programme, 2011), 11. In the UN, EA is the dominant term.
3 D. S. Slocombe, “Environmental Planning, Ecosystem Science, and Ecosystem Approaches for Integrating Environment and Development” (1993) 17 (3) Environmental Management 289; S. Kidd, A. Plater, and C. Frid (eds), The Ecosystem Approach to Marine Planning and Management (Earthscan, 2011), 3–6; V. De Lucia, “Competing Narratives and Complex Genealogies: The Ecosystem Approach in International Environmental Law” (2015) 27 (1) Journal of Environmental Law 91.
4 R. E. Grumbine, “What Is Ecosystem Management?” (1994) 8 (1) Conservation Biology 27; H. J. Cortner and M. A. Moote, The politics of ecosystem management (Island Press, 1999), 11–37; J. A. Layzer, Natural Experiments: Ecosystem-Based Management and the Environment (MIT Press, 2008), 9–41.
5 K. McLeod, J. Lubchenko, S. R. Palumbie et al, Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management (2005). Signed by 221 academic scientists and policy experts with relevant expertise and published by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea at: http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM (accessed 17 November 2023) [Consensus Declaration]; J. M. Wondolleck and S. L. Yaffee, Marine Ecosystem-Based Management in Practice: Different Pathways, Common Lessons (Island Press, 2017), xii.
6 CBD, COP 2, decision II/8, Jakarta 1995 at: https://www.cbd.int/meetings/COP-02 (accessed 17 November 2023).
7 CBD, COP 5, decision V/6, Nairobi 2000 [the Malawi principles] at: https://www.cbd.int/meetings/COP-05 (accessed 17 November 2023).
8 S. M. Garcia, J. Rice, and A. Charles (eds), Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation. Interaction and Coevolution (Wiley Blackwell, 2014), 3–52.
9 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (UN Doc. A/CONF.199/20, 4 September 2002), Resolution I, Annex, 30(d).
10 Å. Persson, H. Runhaar, S. Karlsson-Vynkhuyzen et al, “Environmental Policy Integration: Taking Stock of Policy Practice in Different Contexts” (2018) 85 Environmental Science & Policy, 113.
11 McLeod, Lubchenko, Palumbie et al, note NOTEREF _Ref133494551 \h 5; UNEP, note NOTEREF _Ref134032087 \h 2, 11; T. E. Dolan, W. S. Patrick, J. S. Link et al, “Delineating the Continuum of Marine Ecosystem-Based Management: A US Fisheries Reference Point Perspective” (2016) 73 (4) ICES Journal of Marine Science 1042.
12 C. Engler, “Beyond Rhetoric: Navigating the Conceptual Tangle Towards Effective Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Oceans Management” (2015) 23 (3) Environmental Reviews 288; Ø. Aas, M. Indset, C. Prip et al, Ecosystem-Based Management: Miracle or Mirage? Mapping and Rapid Evidence Assessment of International and Nordic Research Literature on Ecosystem-Based Management (NINA, 2020), 48–59.
13 K. McLeod and H. Leslie (eds), Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans (Island Press, 2009); C. J. Harvey, C. R. Kelbe and F. B. Schwing, “Implementing ‘the IEA’: Using Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Frameworks, Programs, and Applications in Support of Operationalizing Ecosystem-Based Management” (2017) 74 (1) ICES Journal of Marine Science 398.
14 Wondolleck and Yaffe, note NOTEREF _Ref133494551 \h 5; D. Fluharty, “Ecosystem-Based Approaches to Ocean Management in the United States: Weaving Together Multiple Strands” in D. Langlet and R. Rayfuse (eds), The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance: Perspectives From Europe and Beyond (Brill-Nijhof, 2019), 371.
15 J. Vince, “Integrated Policy Approaches and Policy Failure: The Case of Australia’s Oceans Policy” (2015) 48 (2) Integrating Knowledge and Practice to Advance Human Dignity 159; G. Sander, “Ecosystem-Based Management in Canada and Norway: The Importance of Political Leadership and Effective Decision-Making for Implementation” (2018) 163 Ocean & Coastal Management 485.
16 W. Flannery, “Making Marine Spatial Planning Matter” in S. Partelow, M. Hadjimichael and A.-K. Hornige (eds), Ocean Governance: Knowledge Systems, Policy Foundations and Thematic Analyses (Springer International, 2023), 93.
17 C. Ehler and F. Douvere, “An International Perspective on Marine Spatial Planning Initiatives” (2010) 37(3) Environments 9.
18 CBD, COP 10 Decision X/2 “Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020” (29 October 2010) UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27.
19 CBD, COP 15 Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework, CBD/COP/DEC/15/4; Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, CBD/COP/DEC/15/24, 7.
20 Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, A/CONF.232/2023/4, adopted 19 June 2023, not entered into force, Art 7(f) [BBNJ]. Note also how the objective in Article 2 coincides with definitions of EBM; see the discussion later in this article.
21 Ibid, Art 1.
22 M. Doelle and G. Sander, “Next Generation Environmental Assessment in the Emerging High Seas Regime? An Evaluation of the State of the Negotiations” (2020) 35 (3) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 498; BBNJ, ibid, part III compared to Art 39(2).
23 Kidd, Plater and Frid, note NOTEREF _Ref133495704 \h 3, 4; R. D. Long, A. Charles and R. L. Stephenson, “Key Principles of Marine Ecosystem-Based Management” (2015) 57 Marine Policy 53; Engler, note NOTEREF _Ref133673567 \h 12; De Lucia, note NOTEREF _Ref133495704 \h 3.
24 S. A. Murawski, “Ten Myths Concerning Ecosystem Approaches to Marine Resource Management” (2007) 31(6) Marine Policy, 681; UNEP, note NOTEREF _Ref134540748 \h 2.
25 S. L. Yaffee, “Three Faces of Ecosystem Management” (1999) 13 (4) Conservation Biology 713; Engler, note 12; Kidd, Plater and Frid, note NOTEREF _Ref133495704 \h 3.
26 Ehler and Dovere, note 17; Flannery, note NOTEREF _Ref134631061 \h 16.
27 Kunming-Montreal framework, note 19.
28 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), Official Journal of the European Union L 164 (25 June 2008), [MSFD].
29 Kidd, Plater and Frid, note NOTEREF _Ref133495704 \h 3, 4.
30 UNEP note NOTEREF _Ref134032087 \h 2; Engler note NOTEREF _Ref133673567 \h 12; K. K. Arkema, S. C. Abramson and B. M. Dewsbury, “Marine Ecosystem-Based Management: From Characterization to Implementation” (2006) 4 (10) Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 525; McLeod, Lubchenko, Palumbie et al, note NOTEREF _Ref133494551 \h 5.
31 McLeod, Lubchenko, Palumbie et al, note NOTEREF _Ref133494551 \h 5.
32 Ibid, 1.
33 Ibid, 4–5. These included ecosystem-level planning, cross-jurisdictional management goals, zoning, habitat restoration, co-management strategies, adaptive management, and long-term monitoring and research.
34 Arctic Council, Ecosystem-based management in the Arctic: Report submitted to senior Arctic officials by the Expert Group on Ecosystem-Based management (Arctic Council, Tromsø, 2013) at: https://www.havochvatten.se/download/18.3f5692b613e6622a2ebd78/1369205856863/ecosystem-based-management-arctic.pdf (accessed 6 December 2023). [Expert Group]
35 Ibid, 11–12; Record of the First Joint Ministerial Meeting of the Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions (Bremen, 26 June 2003), Annex 5, “Towards an Ecosystem Approach to the Management of Human Activities”; International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Guidance on the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Management of Human Activities in the European Marine Environment, (ICES Cooperative Research Report no 273, 2005).
36 Arctic Council, note 34, 13–19, 23–27. Here, the Expert Group demonstrated how it reviewed and merged principles from five sources, including the CBD’s Malawi Principles and the 2006 UN open-ended informal consultative process on oceans and the law of the sea. It should be noted that these are principles meant to supplement the definition. To what extent they express or are supported by legal principles is not discussed here.
37 Kiruna Declaration on the occasion of the Eight ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council (MM 08–15 May, Kiruna, Sweden), 15 May 2013, Arctic Council Secretariat.
38 Examples of literature discussing EBM principles are Arkema, Abramson and Dewsbury, note + 30; A. A. Rosenberg and P. A. Sandifer, “What Do Managers Need?” in K. McLeod and H. Leslie (eds), note 13; Long, Charles and Stephenson, note 23; Engler, note 12. Even though the principles in some of these are based on searches in scientific literature, there is considerable overlap with principes identified by the Expert Group.
39 A. Trouwborst, “The Precautionary Principle and the Ecosystem Approach in International Law: Differences, Similarities and Linkages” (2009) 18 (1) Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 26, 33–34; McLeod, Lubchenko, Palumbi et al, note 5. The BBNJ agreement, note 20, Art 19(3), also suggests a linkage.
40 McLeod, Lubchenko, Palumbie et al, note 5, 6; Kidd, Platter and Frid, note NOTEREF _Ref133495704 \h 3, 21.
41 Ibid.
42 The first part of Engler, note 12, has references to and discusses much of this biological literature. See also Aas, Indset, Prip et al, note 12.
43 Maintenance of health, integrity, structure, function, productivity, and resilience are examples of normative characteristics of goals for the ecosystem that can be found in the definitions cited here. See also Grumbine, note NOTEREF _Ref133568351 \h 4, and Engler, note NOTEREF _Ref133673567 \h 12. Here, *health" is used as a geric term.
44 A. Underdal, “Integrated Marine Policy: What? Why? How?” (1980) 4 (3) Marine Policy 159; E. Meijers and D. Stead, “Policy Integration: What Does It Mean and How Can It Be Achieved? A Multi-Disciplinary Review,” Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (2004), at: https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2004/download/meijers_stead_f.pdf (accessed 18 November 2023).
45 Arctic Council, note NOTEREF _Ref135921999 \h 31, 11.
46 A. Faludi and B. Waterhout, “Introducing Evidence-Based Planning” (2006) 42 (165) disP—The Planning Review 4; Kidd, Plater and Frid, note 3, ch. 1; Trowborst, note 39.
47 G. Andersen, Parlamentets natur: Utviklingen av norsk miljø- og petroleumspolitikk 1945–2013 (Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 2017) [The Nature of Parliament. The Manufacture of legitimate Norwegian Environmental and Petroleum Policy 1945–2013], chapters 5 and 7; E. Olsen, S. Holen, A. H. Hoel et al, “How Integrated Ocean governance in the Barents Sea Was Created by a Drive for Increased Oil Production” (2016) 71 Marine Policy 293.
48 Political platform for a coalition government originating from Høyre (Conservatives), Kristelig Folkeparti (Christian Democrats), and Venstre (Liberals) at p 19–20 (The Sem Declaration); interviews with two participants in the negotiations who later became ministers.
49 Report to the Storting (white paper) No 12 (2001–2002) Protecting the Riches of the Seas. An overview containing links to English translations of Report No 12, and the subsequent management plans (not complete) can be found at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/climate-and-environment/biodiversity/innsiktsartikler-naturmangfold/forvaltningsplaner-for-havomrada/id207648/ (accessed 17 November 2023).
50 Report to the Storting (white paper) No 8 (2005–2006) Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands, ibid. The processes for preparing and implementing the plan are analyzed in Olsen, Holen and Hoel, note 47, and in G. Sander, “Against All Odds? Implementing a Policy for Ecosystem-Based Management of the Barents Sea” (2018) 157 Ocean and Coastal Management 111.
51 All assessments and technical reports (in Norwegian with some English summaries) as well as Norwegian versions of all the white papers can be found at: https://havforum.miljodirektoratet.no (accessed 17 November 2023).
52 Report to the Storting (white paper) No 20 (2019–2020), Norway’s Integrated Ocean Management Plans—Barents Sea–Lofoten Area; the Norwegian Sea; and the North Sea and Skagerrak, at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meld.-st.-20-20192020/id2699370 (accessed 17 November).
53 This is done in for instance, C. Ehler and F. Douvere, Marine Spatial Planning, A Step-by-Step Approach Toward Ecosystem-Based Management (IOC-UNESCO, 2009). The clearest spatial element in the plans is the political mechanism for steering where the sectoral oil and gas management should open or close access to areas. A general guideline for the use of ocean space is the requirement to be cautious when operating in the vulnerable and valuable areas. See Sander, note 50, and the last chapters in the management plans, note 49.
54 Explained by two ministers in a meeting with stakeholders 29 September 2023.
55 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards a Strategy to protect and Conserve the Marine Environment COM (2002) 539 final, 2–3.
56 MSFD, note 28; L. Juda, “The European Union and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Continuing the Development of European Ocean Use Management” (2010) 41 (1) Ocean Development & International Law 34.
57 N. Soininen and F. M. Platjouw, “Resilience and Adaptive Capacity of Aquatic Environmental Law in the EU: An Evaluation and Comparison of the WFD, MSFD, and MSPD” in D. Langlet and R. Rayfuse (eds), The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance: Perspectives from Europe and Beyond (Brill Nijhoff, 2019), 17.
58 Norway is not a member of the EU. The relationship between Norway and the EU is regulated by the European Economic Area Agreement. Norway gets access to EU's internal market on the condition that it acceeds certain types of EU directives and policies. See overview at: https://www.norway.no/en/missions/eu/areas-of-cooperation/the-eea-agreement (accessed 17 November 2023). The MSFD is not covered by the agreement, whereas the Water Framework Directive is.
59 The member states should define competent authority and report it to the Commission; see the MSFD, note 28, Arts 7 and 13(3). Thus, the Norwegian version described in the previous section is “a special case” in a European context.
60 The Commission has evaluated progress after three major stages of the member states’ reporting. The most recent evaluation, summarizing major findings across these, is Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council—on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) (Brussels 25.6.2020 COM (2020) 259 final). The interplay with nine supporting EU policies is the subject of section 3, and preliminary suggestions for improvement can be found in section 5.
61 Source: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-publishes-msfd-roadmap-2021-04-09_en (accessed 6 December 2023). The review has been postponed from the original deadline of mid 2023.
62 The only formal instructions are the mandates that the steering group has provided for its advisory bodies (available at: https://havforum.miljodirektoratet.no, accessed 17 November 2023). Apart from that, an interviewee explained that only general rules for the functioning of the government apparatus apply, some of them formalized, some of them informal customary behavior (god forvaltningsskikk).
63 G. Sander, Implementation of Ecosystem-Based Ocean Management (2018), PhD thesis from UiT, at: https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/15191, chapter 2 and Paper 2 (accessed 6 December 2023); G. Sander, S. Cochrane, F. Platjouw et al, Two Pathways to Good Environmental Status. A Comparison of EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Norwegian Ocean Management Plans (Miljødirektoratet and NIVA, Oslo, 2022), at: https://niva.brage.unit.no/niva-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2984945/7689-2022%2bhigh.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (in Norwegian with English summary).
64 Report No 20 (2019–2020), note 52.
65 MSFD, note 28, preamble (8, 44), Art 1(3). Interestingly, in the European Commission’s evaluation report (note 60, 5), the definition of EBM provided is a combination of those adopted by the CBD and the Consensus Declaration.
66 The boundary toward the coast is the baseline, as it is for the MSFD according to its Articles 2 and 3(1)a. The MSFD Article 3(1)b provides European coastal states with the opportunity to extend their marine strategies into coastal waters to supplement the Water Framework Directive (WFD), which has a narrower thematic scope. The Norwegian government, on the other hand, has made a strict divide between the OMPs and the designation of measures for managing the coastal zone, where the counties and municipalities have prominent roles (Report No 37 (2012–2013), note 51, 14). Thus, the plans made according to the WFD are the closest Norway comes to ecosystem-based management of its coastal zone, which is exceptionally large in a European context owing to its deep fjords and many islands that define the baseline (Figure 2).
67 Report no 8, note 50, 16.
68 MSFD, note 28, Arts 3(2) and 4.
69 Interviewees refer to especially ICES assessments and the status reports of the Barents Sea prepared under the Norwegian–Russian environmental cooperation; see https://www.barentsportal.com/barentsportal/index.php/en (accessed 17 November 2023). Some information from the coastal zone is also considered.
70 Sander, note 50, 116–117; Report No 20, note 52, 137–144, 158–159.
71 MSFD, note 28, Arts 1(1), 5(1).
72 Ibid Arts 4, 5(2), 4, 6, 8(3), 11(1 and 2), 13(8).
73 Ibid Arts 3(10), 6.
74 European Commission, note 60, 28.
75 Report No 20 (2019–2020), note 52, 14–15.
76 Ibid, 144–160 contains the most recent example.
77 European Environment Agency, Delineation of the MSFD Article 4 Marine Regions and Subregions (2017). Source: https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=5bdf291fcc2d71dbJmltdHM9MTY5Njg5NjAwMCZpZ3VpZD0zMGVmZDE2NS04MTk0LTYxMmMtMzdjYS1jMjVjODBjMzYwZTQmaW5zaWQ9NTE4OQ&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=30efd165-8194-612c-37ca-c25c80c360e4&psq=Delineation+of+the+MSFD+Article+4+marine+regions+and+subregions&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWVhLmV1cm9wYS5ldS9kYXRhLWFuZC1tYXBzL2RhdGEvbXNmZC1yZWdpb25zLWFuZC1zdWJyZWdpb25zL3RlY2huaWNhbC1kb2N1bWVudC9wZGYvZG93bmxvYWQ&ntb=1 (accessed 17 November 2023).
78 Persson, Runhaar, Karlsson-Vynkhuyzen et al, note 10.
79 MSFD, note 28, Arts 1(2), 1(3), and 5. The content described is typical for a plan, which is a term that also is used here when referring to the marine strategies.
80 MSFD, note 28, Arts 1(4), 13(2), and 13(4).
81 Ibid, Arts 3(5) and 17.
82 Report No 20, note 52, 16 and 159.
83 MSFD, note 28, Art 8; Olsen, Holen and Hoel, note 47; Sander, note 50.
84 MSFD, note 28, Arts 10 and 11; Report No 8, note 50.
85 P. Heslenfeld and E. L. Enserink, “OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives: The Utility of Health Indicators for the North Sea” (2008) 65 ICES Journal of Marine Science 1392.
90 Source of the figure: Sander, note 50.
86 Sander, Cochrane, Platjouw et al, note 63, 20.
87 Report no 20, note 52, 58–62; Faglig forum for norske havområder 2023: Faggrunnlag for helhetlige forvaltningsplaner for norske havområder—hovedrapport 2019–2023, 233–240 (the consolidated document with all scientific input to the next OMP, with English summary).
88 Ibid, 18–21.
89 Sander, Cochrane, Platjouw et al, note 63, 20–25 with annexes.
91 The North Sea collaboration has been important; see HELCOM and OSPAR, note NOTEREF _Ref133588998 \h 22. Norway presented its first plan several times to the EU and was also actively involved during the drafting of the MSFD, despite not being a member state (Report No 37 2008–2009, note 51, 21; personal observations during work in the EU system when the MSFD was prepared).
92 M. Knol, Marine Ecosystem Governance in the Making: Planning for Petroleum Activity in the Barents Sea-Lofoten Area (University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 2010); Andersen, note 47, chapters 8 and 9; Report no 20, note 52, 15, 62–66.
93 MSFD, note 28, Art 19.
94 Report no 20, note 52, 17; Sander, Cochrane, Platjouw et al, note 63, 27. As a contrast, the counties and municipalities that have prominent roles in coastal management follow legislation that invite stakeholders to comment at least on the scope of the planning process, and later, on a draft plan (Plan- og bygningsloven).
95 MSFD, note 28, Arts 13(3), 13(5). As a parallel, the requirements and methodology for undertaking impact assessments of major interventions internally in the EU are described in European Commission, Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD (2021) 305 final, and the associated Better Regulation Toolbox, at: https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en (accessed 17 November).
96 European Commission, note 60. Norwegian advisory bodies complain about the same problem when conducting ex post evaluations; refer to Faglig forum, note 88.
97 Report no 20, note 52, 144.
98 Sander, note 50.
99 MSFD, note 28, Art 13(8).
100 Sander, note 50, 117–118.
101 Report to the Storting (white paper) No 29 (2020–2021), Norway’s Integrated Plan for the Conservation of Areas of Special Importance for Marine Biodiversity, at: https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meld.-st.-29-20202021/id2843433, 6–7 (accessed 6 December 2023). The government announced in June 2022 that it will prepare new legislation that will enable designating MPAs also beyond the territorial sea, which is the boundary for the current legal mandate (Naturmangfoldloven).
102 MSFD, note 28, Art 13(4), 21; European Commission, note NOTEREF _Ref134467677 \h 58. The target at the time of evaluation was 10 percent.
103 MSFD, note 28, Arts 20, 23.
104 Ibid, Art 1(3).
105 The same deliberations are relevant for the government’s current consideration of how to integrate some sort of principles for MSP into the OMPs.
106 Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries 2021: Blue Ocean, Green Future provides an overview at: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/564afd76f1e34ccda982f785c33d21b9/en-gb/pdfs/regjeringens-havrapport-engelsk.pdf (accessed 6 December 2023). The strategies were not subjected to discussions in the parliament, like the OMPs, but contain communication of policy from the government. They have been followed up by different types of initiatives to stimulate oil and gas activities, offshore aquaculture, offshore wind energy, and seabed mining. The plan for maritime industries (næringsplan) will be presented in 2024 (note 54).
107 E. Johansen, “Norway’s Integrated Ocean Management: A Need for Stronger Protection of the Environment?” (2018) 32 Ocean Yearbook 239.
108 MSFD, note 28, preamble (9).
109 See overview with references in this factsheet: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/121/integrated-maritime-policy-of-the-european-union#Role%20of%20The%20European%20Parliament (accessed 17 November 2023).
110 MSFD note 28, preamble (2); MSPD, note 111, preamble (2) and Art 3.
111 Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, 135–145 [MSPD]. This is not applicable to Norway, ref note 58; Soininen and Platjouw, note 57.
112 Ibid, preamble (2 and 4), Arts 1 and 5.
113 MSPD, ibid, contains general requirements to apply an ecosystem-based approach to achieve good environmental status, but, on the other hand, leaves it up to the member states to undertake the balancing between different uses and conservation, without any requirements to document whether their choices actually do contribute to the aim, as in MSFD Art 13, and without any oversight of the results from the EU.
114 M. Nilsson, T. Zamparutti, J. E. Petersen et al, “Understanding Policy Coherence: Analytical Framework and Examples of Sector-Environment Policy Interactions in the EU” (2012) 22 (6) Env. Pol. Gov. 395.
115 J. Mahoney and K. Thelen, “A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change” in J. Mahoney and K. Thelen (eds), Explaining Institutional Change. Ambiguity, Agency and Power (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 1.
116 Ibid; C. Kelly, G. Ellis and W. Flannery, “Conceptualising Change in Marine Governance: Learning from Transition Management” (2018) 95 Marine Policy 24; K. A. Alexander and M. Haward, “The Human Side of Marine Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM): ‘Sectoral Interplay’ as a Challenge to Implementing EBM” (2019) 101 Marine Policy 33.
117 S.-T. Puharinen, “Achieving Good Marine Environmental Status in the EU—Implications of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive for Member States and Blue Economic Activities” (2023) 155 Marine Policy 105712.
118 Trouwborst, note 39, 31.
119 B. Giddings, B. Hopwood and G. O’Brien, “Environment, Economy and Society: Fitting Them Together Into Sustainable Development” (2002) 10(4) Sustainable Development 187; E. Neumayer, Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms (4th edn.) (Edward Elgar, 2013), 1–7; De Lucia, note 3; Yaffee, note 25.
120 P. Jones, L. M. Lieberknecht and W. Qiu, “Marine Spatial Planning in Reality: Introduction to Case Studies and Discussion of Findings” (2016) 71 Marine Policy 256.
121 Flannery, note 16.
122 Jones, Lieberknecht and Qiu, note 120.
123 European Commission, note NOTEREF _Ref134467677 \h 58.
124 One example is E. Dominguez-Tejo, G. Metternich, E. Johnston et al, “Marine Spatial Planning Advancing the Ecosystem-Based Approach to Coastal Zone Management: A Review” (2016) 72 Marine Policy 115.
125 CBD’s Malawi Principles, note 7. Principle 5 on maintaining ecosystem services, 6 on limits to ecosystem functioning, 10 on balancing conservation and use, and 12 on involvement of all sectors of society and scientific disciplines are most relevant to the specification of “integration” suggested here.
126 Report no 20, note 52, 15.
127 MSFD, note 28, Arts 1(3), 3(4), 3(5).
128 Report no 20, note 52, 15.
129 MSFD, note 28, Arts 6, 13(5), 15.
130 Report no 20, note 52, 12.
131 MSPD, note 111, on the other hand, contains requirements for best available knowledge, data, and information in preamble (18, 24), Art 6(e), 10.
132 MSFD, note 28, preamble (23).
133 R. Mahon, L. Fanning and P. McConney, “A Governance Perspective on the Large Marine Ecosystem Approach” (2009) 33 Marine Policy 317; PAME, EA Guidelines: Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Management of Arctic Marine Ecosystems (Arctic Council, Tromsø, 2019).
134 European Commission, note 60.
135 E. Øseth and O. Korneev, “Integrated Ocean Management in the Barents Sea” in O. R. Young, P. A. Berkman and A. N. Vylegzhaning (eds), Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea: Volume 1 (Springer International, 2020), 207; note 56; interview.
136 MSFD, note 28, preamble (27, 44).
137 UNEP, note NOTEREF _Ref134540748 \h 2.
138 European Commission, note 60; Puharinen, note 117.
139 Faglig forum, note 88.
140 Note 4.