Download
1 / 28
290 likes | 499 Vues
Governance for Sustainability in the Baltic Region. Summer course: Sustainable Development in the Baltic Region 23 August 2010 Mathias Zannakis Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg. Today’s lecture. The concept of governance
E N D
Governance for Sustainability in the Baltic Region Summer course: Sustainable Development in the Baltic Region 23 August 2010 Mathias Zannakis Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg
Today’s lecture • The concept of governance • Governance institutions of relevance for sustainability in the Baltic Region • including a discussion of Multi-Level Governance • General comparison of Baltic Sea riparian countries’ environmental policy and environmental impact • implies that history, tradition and other structural factors also matter
Governance – what does it mean? • Background: debate on governance vs. government • Traditionally: government provide the basic rules of the game by which others need to abide. Public administration does as is told. Government has the ability to know what is needed and to make it happen. • Contemporary comprehension: sees the “hollowing-out” of the nation state which thus implies an erosion of traditional bases of power. Can be “upwards” (inter-/transnationally), “downwards” (sub-nationally/locally) or “sideways” to other actors such as civil society or the market.
Governance – what does it mean? • There are various definitions but one common definition is descriptive, i.e. governance stands for a description of how political life is organized in reality, and who are involved in this process. • The concept thus helps us to find out what actors and structures that are politically important • There is also an ideological side to the concept
Governance – consequences? • For political analysis? • We should not be content with simply analyzing national governments; other entities are important too (but which ones is an empirical question) • Democracy? • What democratic legitimacy have those actors that also influence policymaking? • Power? • This change implies that power is diffused and more difficult to identify
Governance and the perception of transnational environmental problems • Contemporary view: many environmental problems are difficult to manage within the nation state • e.g. climate change, over-fishing, eutrophication etc. • Cooperation between states and other actors/institutions is considered necessary (cf. lecture by Jagers) • Hence, we can identify governance structures including actors beyond the nation-state in environmental policymaking
Environmental Governance in the Baltic Sea Region • The Baltic Sea is vulnerable to pollution • Surrounded by ten highly industrialized countries • Modern agriculture is also a large pollutant in the area → Difficult to manage Baltic Sea environmental problems within nation states. • Moreover, these states are different regarding economic, cultural and political context factors. • The Baltic Sea Region is regarded as a pioneer in the introduction of new modes of governance.
Environmental governance types beyond the nation state in the Baltic Sea Region • International regimes and Intergovernmental cooperation : Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area; Council of the Baltic Sea States • Supranational institutions: European Union (EU). • Transnational policy networks: Baltic 21 • Transnational networks (including NGOs): Union of the Baltic Cities; Coalition Clean Baltic
The emergence of new governance types in the Baltic Sea Region • We can see the emergence of transnationalization and Europeanization of the BSR (= less importance of national government), due to: • The end of the Cold War → the establishment of new transnational and sub-national actors, transformation process partly aided by the Nordic countries • The UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992 → Agenda 21, more integrative and participatory approaches to governance • Increasing European integration → two waves of enlargement: 1995 (Sweden and Finland), 2004 (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia).
International regimes: Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area • 1974 (Denmark, Finland, FRG, GDR, Poland, Sweden, the USSR), thus, there was environmental cooperation during the Cold war; • 1992 (as before but now reunited Germany and the newly independent Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia as well as EU)
Helsinki Convention continued • Has a governing body, the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM). Not legally binding recommendations. 5 working groups. 19 international NGOs have observatory status. Gradually opening up to civil society and various stakeholders. • Some achievements, but many contamination sources still remain.
The European Union (EU) • A central actor in environmental governance and sustainable development in this region, especially regarding the creation of frameworks and standards, and targeted funding. Important role for the new member countries in the pre-accession phase.
The EU continued • Top-down → “context-based” and integrated policy concept with new instruments such as including the participation of stakeholders. • Subsidiarity principle (requires the incorporation of sub-national levels of government in policy formulation and implementation) • Implementation deficit, partly due to lack of administrative capacity. Solution? → include a wide range of stakeholders • Policy integration – vertically and horizontally. → Truly MLG, hard to accomplish successfully. • Nowadays the EU aims to create more openness, participation, coherence and effectiveness. Flexibility. Dialogues before decisions.
Transnational policy networks: Baltic 21 • A regional Agenda 21. The aim is to assist BSR countries to achieve sustainable development in the priority areas: agriculture, education, energy, fisheries, forests, industry, tourism, transports. • Involves a variety of actors, from nation states to civil society, in all countries surrounding the Baltic Sea (+ Norway and Iceland).
Baltic 21 continued • However, civil society members are by far outnumbered by governmental and other institutional actors, and have far less influence than the latter. • Mixed results. Agriculture, fisheries and tourism identified as problematic sectors. • The overall success depends upon resources provided by the member countries and measures implemented by them, which makes it all the more problematic. Moreover, there is a lack of commitment in some responsible ministries.
Transnational networks: Union of the Baltic Cities • Governance without national government; governance in order to bypass nation states. Not only environmental issues, but broader in scope. The creation of the UBC was facilitated by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Developed spontaneously. • Municipal networking and collective articulation of interests is considered essential to make their voices heard in international (e.g. EU) contexts.
Union of the Baltic Cities continued • Internal network governance can produce policy convergence among members. • Main goals: • Best practice transfer and learning • Representation and lobbying • Tends to attract already progressive cities.
The Multi-Level Governance of the Baltic Sea Region • Altogether this implies that environmental governance in the Baltic Sea Region is quite diffuse. • Multi-level Governance • Considered more effective than “command-and-control”, but; • What does this mean for democratic accountability? • What does it imply in terms of implementation?
National variations in the Baltic Sea states • Despite the multi-level governance (including transnationalization and Europeanization) of the BSR there are differences between riparian countries regarding environmental policy and environmental outcomes. • One reasonable explanation is that structural features, institutions, and passed experiences are important • The Nordic countries and Germany are considered to be among the environmental pioneers globally. The Baltic countries, Poland and Russia in this case obviously lag behind because they were part of the Soviet bloc.
Economic performance and pollution levels • Is there a decoupling of economic growth (in GDP) and environmental pollution? • CO2 emissions and fertilizer consumption in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland.
GDP growth and CO2 emissions • Regarding the relation between CO2 emissions and GDP growth, Sweden and Germany follow a Kuznets curve (after a certain point of increased emissions a decreasing trend starts), while Finland and Denmark are decoupling from the 1980s. • The trend in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland is a decoupling already during the 1990s (the only decade measured). • The latter countries thus do not seem to pollute as much as the Western countries did when they were in a similar economic process (1950s/-60s).
GDP growth and fertilizer consumption • Regarding the relation between GDP growth and fertilizer consumption during 1961-2000 the Western countries follow a Kuznets curve. • The Eastern riparian countries show an opposite trend. After decreasing trends in the beginning of the 1990s, fertilizer consumption increased in line with recurring economic growth. • But note that the consumption of fertilizers is lower in the Eastern than in the Western riparian countries (although the former are increasing their use).
Political systems and environmental performance vs. individual level attitudes and behavior • The Nordic countries and Germany are considered environmental pioneers. • This can be understood in institutional terms: They had environmental protection organizations, green movements, representation in parliament and government, a Ministry of the Environment and a National Environmental Agency quite early compared to the South-Eastern riparian states.
Political systems and environmental performance vs. individual level attitudes and behavior cont. • Then it may not come as a surprise that residents in the Nordic countries and Germany are generally more willing to pay due to environmental reasons, they score higher on “environmental activism” and green lifestyles, and they are to a higher extent members of environmental organizations. • What came first – institutions or attitudes/behavior?
A tension... • ... between Europeanization and transnationalization processes on the one hand and the importance of institutionalized structures on the other. • The former are important in many ways, but we also saw that successful implementation depends on the involvement of and compatibility with already established institutions.
Success in what terms? • The environmental governance of the Baltic Sea Region is considered quite promising. • Networks, a variety of actors etc. • The state of the Baltic Sea environment is still under stress. • How come? What are your solutions?
Further reading • Much of the data in this lecture is based on: Joas, Marko, Detlef Jahn & Kristine Kern (eds.), 2008: Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region. London: Earthscan.
