Download Mathias Zannakis

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
www.gu.s
e
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
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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
www.gu.s
e
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
www.gu.s
e
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
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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
www.gu.s
e
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:
1. The end of the Cold War → the establishment of new
transnational and sub-national actors, transformation process
partly aided by the Nordic countries
2. The UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in
1992 → Agenda 21, more integrative and participatory
approaches to governance
3. Increasing European integration → two waves of enlargement:
1995 (Sweden and Finland), 2004 (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and
Estonia).
www.gu.s
e
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)
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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 subnational 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.
www.gu.s
e
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).
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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?
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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).
www.gu.s
e
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).
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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?
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
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?
www.gu.s
e
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.
www.gu.s
e
Thank you for listening!
www.gu.s
e