What better place to choose for a meeting to discuss marine governance than Zandvoort? Once a fishing village, the Dutch beach town has become a popular seaside resort with an F1 racing track and the Luchterduinen offshore wind park visible in the distance. This local transformation is emblematic of the wider processes taking place in our seas and oceans. No longer narrow-focused, they have truly become multi-functional commons where several human-driven activities intersect: transport, energy, fishing, recreation, and aquaculture, to name a few. But this multi-use creates conflicts that can be further exacerbated by competing policy priorities – for instance, how to increase renewables production while protecting natural habitats? How to conserve fishing stocks without damaging the livelihoods of local fishermen? The art of EU marine governance thus lies in the ability of stakeholders from different sectors and decision-making levels to work collaboratively to balance and align competing interests with strategic policy objectives enshrined in the European Green Deal. Is it working? Our research is not yet complete to answer conclusively. Preliminary results from nine case studies point to progress in some areas and lingering issues in others. Read on to learn more.
Case1: Decarbonising shipping in the EU
To reduce emissions from shipping, maritime transport was included in the EU Emissions Trading System, a carbon market with the cap-and-trade logic. Preliminary results identified several concerns with the measure. First, there is a strong impression that current provisions of the EU ETS in the maritime sector could result in a high risk of diversion of shipping routes from EU ports to non-EU ports, which could result in carbon leakage and increased GHG emissions contrary to the very objective of the EU ETS. Second, the lack of availability of alternative fuels for shipping could slow down carbon footprint reduction efforts in accordance with the EU targets, and could lead to potential increase in EU ETS-related compliance costs for shipping companies. Third, the power imbalance that existed among actors in maritime transport seem to be exacerbated or made more apparent by the introduction of the ETS and related policies for decarbonising shipping. This gives the leverage to powerful companies to impose their commercial priorities including ETS surcharges without clear justification, which reduces trust and cooperation among the different actors.
Case 2: European Maritime Space in the Adriatic Sea
Members of North Adriatic Ports Association (NAPA) include five key ports located at the Northern tip of the Adriatic Sea: Port of Koper (Slovenia), Port of Rijeka (Croatia), Port of Trieste (Italy), Port of Venice (Italy) and Port of Ravenna (Italy). These ports and NAPA as a whole participate in the governance of the European Maritime Space, formerly known as Motorways of the Sea, in the Adriatic region. They collaborate to promote regional inter-port cooperation, strengthen the position of the Adriatic region in European logistics, and improve connections with global shipping routes. Traditionally seen as service infrastructure, ports are increasingly transitioning into multifaceted hubs for energy provision, storage, and even production. This expanded role seems to require greater collaboration and alignment between policies regulating port operations and those overseeing shipping vessels, underscoring the need for coordinated governance to address the challenges and opportunities presented by these transformations. At the same time, a significant gap remains between the idealised objectives of EU policy and the practical realities on the ground. Top-down governance approaches are often met with scepticism, and NAPA can be seen as a response to the need for regional cooperation to influence EU policy processes.
Case 3: Seabed integrity in the Baltic Sea
Seabed integrity depends on the health and wellbeing of benthic habitats found on the seafloor. These habitats include geological and biological components that are constantly pressured by human activities e.g. dredging, bottom trawling. The analysis shows that the availability of knowledge is an essential enabler for seabed governance. Missing knowledge about the locations and extent of benthic habitat types, impacts of bottom trawling, cumulative impacts of activities, and the recovery potential of habitats hamper seabed governance. Setting threshold values can support seabed governance by providing concrete quantified targets for seabed protection and legal depth for the enforcement of the MSFD. The threshold values are considered useful and have already been adopted into national decision-making in some countries. However, validity of the threshold values was questioned by a couple of interviewees that do not consider them science-based but rather politically motivated. Further development and harmonisation of methods for data collection and the assessments of the state of marine environment between countries and between HELCOM and the EU would reduce uncertainty and facilitate conducting comparable analyses.
Case 4: Sustainable fishing in the Italian MPA
The Torre Guaceto MPA off the coast of Puglia demonstrates that synergies can be realised between conservation objectives and the interests of small-scale fishers. The strong commitment of the MPA management consortium (especially the MPA manager) to make fisheries a part of the larger socioecological system of the MPA has created local access rights to the MPA for fishermen and has helped build trust and confidence from the fishermen. In addition, the creation of fish traceability system through the Slow Food Movement where labels are assigned to products as well as financial payouts to fishermen have created enabling conditions for increased fishers benefits and compliance to conservation goals. However, the fisheries co-management system is an informal process where a formalised MPA management consortium regularly engages with fishermen on relevant issues. The informality of the co-management process is overcome by the possibility of the MPA to issue formal acts in derogation to the MPA regulation, where the management measures co-defined in the informal process can be formalised and become “law” within the MPA borders for a temporary period of time. Enforcement of such rules is limited by the top-down nature of Italian fisheries and MPA regulatory policies coupled with factors such as lack of capacity and distance of the coast guard from the MPA causing an overall ineffective and reduced effort in surveillance.
Case 5: Floating wind in the Celtic Sea
Floating offshore wind (FLOW) governance arrangements in the Celtic Sea case are changing and innovating in response to different drivers including domestic political priorities (e.g. net-zero, decarbonization, economic growth) and external shocks that emphasize the need for energy security (e.g. the war in Ukraine). To date, the rules of the game that guide floating wind in the UK have evolved organically rather than being designed with intent, which has created policy incoherence and fragmented governance arrangements. Despite this fragmentation, the UK has a well-established offshore wind sector and is positioning itself to become a global leader in floating wind. MGA are in a state of flux as new actors, resources, and rules of the game are being introduced to deliver on this aspiration. However, the absence of a clear roadmap to deliver on ambitious floating wind targets by 2030 creates uncertainty for investors, reduces the likelihood that a new floating wind sector will deliver economic and social value to the UK, and risks further misalignment between climate and nature goals.
Case 6: Energy islands in Denmark
Development of Energy Islands (EIs) in Denmark are facing issues in moving from its current stage, having been implemented in Danish policy, towards the implementation and future planning process. The governance procedures around this process have not been sufficient, and good collaboration dynamics between policymakers, industry and local stakeholders are lacking as a result. The institutional incentives to engage are diminishing due to major uncertainties around EI development and insufficient engagement from an industry perspective. For example, the North Sea Island currently faces stagnation due to excessive costs and lack of industry interest to cover those costs. The EIs has been postponed by at least three years to reassess project development. Meanwhile, the Baltic Sea case has on-going debates on the process of implementation, though actor roles and responsibilities have not been clear. While involvement has been attempted, actors have no control of the project development, and it is not experienced as an inclusive process. Furthermore, current market structures and rigidity of the institutions around offshore wind development means entering a new large-scale project is not economically feasible currently, despite calls for a rapid green energy transition.
Case 7: Offshore wind in Norway
Since the introduction of the European Green Deal, both Norway and the EU have experienced an increased focus on accelerating renewable energy deployment, while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underscored the importance of energy security in the wider discourse on energy transition. Offshore wind energy development is now a priority sector in the current Norwegian government’s strategy. In 2022, the government increased its targets to allocate licenses for 30 GW offshore wind energy production by 2040. However, there is a lack of clarity and inefficiencies in the regulatory frameworks for offshore renewable energy development. Investors face uncertainty about differential contracts, pre-qualification criteria and the production prize in the case of large-scale floating wind projects, and whether license will be granted after impact assessment in the case of "fixed" wind turbine projects. Much needs to be done on clarifying the legal frameworks, simplifying procedures, and financing the green transition.
Case 8: Abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear in the Baltic Sea
Abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) - also known as “ghost gear” - is an important issue to be addressed for the Baltic Sea although other topics (e.g. eutrophication) remain critical in the region too. This has led to some disagreement as to what level, or perhaps how ALDFG is best, to be addressed. It is generally agreed that prevention (i.e. no new ALDFG entering the Baltic Sea) is essential, however, there is less agreement regarding gear retrieval due to concerns of causing additional environmental impacts combined with safety issues. The lack of information on the amount and locations of gear in the Baltic Sea makes it challenging to understand the scope of ALDFG in the region and make informed decisions regarding policy action. The assessment shows that a number of opportunities exist to improve governance in the region by, for instance, addressing data issues through a common database, creating regional best-practices or guidance on key issues like retrieval. Another challenge identified is in regard to potential disconnects between sectors/actors and policies/ministries as well as ensuring adequate incentives and capacity for actors to take action. These challenges could potentially be improved through improving communication with fishers, building links to gear producers and addressing issues concerning gear entering the market, and ensuring stronger integration with waste management strategies.
Case 9: Marine pollution from agriplastics in Murcia, Spain
Agri-food and plastics are some of the biggest industries in the Murcia region. So, it’s not surprising that agriplastics pollution has become a serious issue, in particular along the Murcia coastline, with 790 litter items found on a stretch of land near the Mar Menor and the Marina of Cape Cope in 2024. The initial assessment shows that governance for this source of marine pollution is growing as a result of the iterative process of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation at the national level. This process enabled the capability of the marine governance arrangement to act reflexively and adapt to the increasing knowledge on this source of pollution. However, at present, there are barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration, particularly between marine protection and agricultural actors at the national level. As a result, knowledge and effective implementation of solutions stemming from marine protection may be hampered by this institutional fragmentation. Moreover, knowledge on agriculturalist experiences and practices that contribute to agriplastic pollution are limited due to the prioritisation of the biodegradable/compostable plastic substitution discourse and a gap in competence between agricultural and waste management sectors.
Comments