www.gu.se

Summer course: Sustainable Development in the Baltic Region

23 August 2010

Mathias Zannakis

Department of Political Science

University of Gothenburg

Governance for Sustainability in the Baltic Region

www.gu.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.

www.gu.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

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.se

Thank you for listening!