The environmental state at sea

Abstract

Seas and oceans are confronted with a plethora of environmental problems, caused by land-based activities (agriculture, industries, and ports) and by maritime activities (such as shipping, fishing, oil and gas drilling, tourism, and navigational dredging). Environmental problems at sea challenge the efficacy of state sovereignty. Who is responsible, accountable, and regulates environmental and spatial problems at the level of regional seas, and what is the role of states in these processes of governance? In the regional seas and on the high seas, the environmental state is challenged by two developments: states become players at different levels, and states are confronted with the activities of big market players where they have no or little jurisdiction. The different forms of the environmental state in Europe’s regional seas and in the Arctic Ocean are examined.

Keywords:

• marine governance
• network state
• regime complexes
• networked polity
• Arctic
• MSFD
• MSP
• EU

Notes

1. Statehood exists both in juridical form (as the recognition of state sovereignty by other states and international institutions), and as empirical reality (in which the state is able to enforce laws and control populations within its territory; Jackson and Rosberg 1982, citedin Lake 2014).

2. In the second stage of modernity, ‘the indissoluble link of society and nation-state is fundamentally broken with the emergence of a logic of flows including … the flows of risks … In such a situation modernity is radicalized, subjecting itself to reflexive processes. Second or reflexive modernization disenchants and dissolves its own taken-for-granted foundations’ (Urry 2004, p. 6)

3. This view is illustrated by Risse et al. (2001, p. 3), who define Europeanisation as the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of governance, that is, of political, legal, and social institutions associated with problem solving that formalise interactions among the actors, and of policy networks specialising in the creation of authoritative European rules.

4. Marine governance involves a process of negotiation between, on the one hand, nested general institutions operating at several levels, and on the other hand, state actors, market parties, and civil society organizations. This process leads to a sharing of competences for policymaking to govern activities at sea and control their consequences (Van Leeuwen and Van Tatenhove 2010, Van Tatenhove 2013).

5. GES is defined as: ‘The environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations’ (EC 2008a).

6. Boström et al. (2015) analyse the dynamic interplay between domestic and transnational processes in the development of cross-border collaboration among ENGOs in the Baltic Sea and the Adriatic-Ionian Sea Region. Their study identifies how different national, macro-regional, and European institutional structures shape the conditions under which ENGOs develop cross-border collaborations, and demonstrate the importance of long-term and dynamic interplay between processes that occur at the domestic and transnational levels.

7. Van Tatenhove et al. (2014) developed four possible governance models for regional seas: ‘Cross-border Platforms’, ‘Advisory Alliances’, ‘Regional Sea Conventions PLUS’, and ‘Regional Sea Assembly’.

8. The Arctic Five are the five Arctic littoral states, namely Russia, Norway, Denmark (Greenland), Canada, and the USA (Alaska).

9. The Northern Dimension is an intergovernmental platform of cooperation between the EU, Russia, Norway, and Iceland. The Northern Dimension was launched in 1997 by Finland to emphasise the interdependence between the EU and Russia, Norway, Iceland, and the Baltic States (non-EU Member States at that time).

10. The Nordic Council is an inter-parliamentary coalition between the Nordic countries, which include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland. Parliamentarians of all Nordic countries are taking place in the Council and decide upon issues after which they call on the governments of the Nordic countries to implement these.

11. The Commission consists of 22 experts in the fields of geology, geophysics, or hydrology, which represent the geographical range of member states to the Convention (Smits 2012).

12. In its communication about the Arctic, the EU was an advocate of a legally binding Arctic Treaty, to overcome ‘…the fragmentation of the legal framework, the lack of effective instruments, the absence of an overall policy-setting process and gaps in participation, implementation and geographic scope’ (EC 2008c). The Arctic Five (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, Russia, and the USA) are the main opponents of such a treaty, and claim that they are the legitimate stakeholders to deal with claims and interest of Arctic resources (Ilulissat Declaration 2008).

13. The Ilulissat Declaration, 28 May 2008. According to the declaration: ‘…the law of the sea provides for important rights and obligations concerning the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf, the protection of the marine environment, including ice covered areas, freedom of navigation, marine scientific research, and other uses of the sea. We remain committed to this legal framework and to the orderly settlement of any possible overlapping claims’.