An Assessment of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) Using the OECD Principles on Water Governance

Abstract

This paper uses the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) water governance principles to assess the governance of the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), with a focus on the eutrophication segment. Whilst governance assessments can be used as auditing functions, this study was done with the goal of stimulating reflection, in order to investigate whether the governance systems have made any improvements. This is especially needed, since the BSAP is to be renewed in 2021, so that any assessment of it at this moment is timely. This review has focused on the 12 principles of water governance and the three complementary drivers into which the principles are grouped: Effectiveness, efficiency and trust, and engagement. This paper focuses on national implementation actions. It uses qualitative thematic analysis to analyze the content of the national implementation plans for Baltic Sea Coastal countries. It identifies gaps in water governance and makes recommendations for enhancing effectiveness, efficiency and trust, and engagement in the governance of the Baltic Sea, including improved stakeholder participation, the establishment of a permanent lead agency for the implementation of BSAP, increased funding for implementation actions, and a better governance of trade-offs.There is clearly a gap in the decision making and implementation of actions to achieve national nutrient reduction measures. It is this governance gap that spurs this study, which aims to assess the BSAP through the lens of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) water governance principles. It explores the extent to which the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan provides conditions for an effective application of the 12 principles of water governance, unveiled by the OECD in 2015. It focuses on the country level implementation of the BSAP, using the National implementation reports (NIP). Using this framework, it identifies factors that enable or constrain the implementation of the BSAP, and makes recommendations for improvement. This study is timely, as the findings can inform the process for the renewal of BSAP in 2021.

Early Lessons of COVID-19 for Governance of the North American Great Lakes and the Baltic Sea

“…There were originally (1987-1991) 43 Areas of Concern, with 5 common ones, 26 in the United States and 17 in Canada. To date there are four hot spots delisted, or fully recovered, in Canada and four in the United States [6]. In the Baltic Sea Region, significantly polluted sites, HELCOM Hot spots (established in 1992) remain, as three quarters (121 out of 162) have been cleaned up as of June 2019 [18].…”

“…Similarly, evaluations of key Great Lakes institutions, such as the International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Commission, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the Binational Executive Committee, can provide valuable insights for adaptive governance of the Great Lakes. In the Baltic Sea Region, institutional accountability can help in decreasing governance gaps, such as stakeholder participation, funding deficits and governance tradeoffs [6].…”

“…The approach is seen in integrated coastal and ocean management, as is it seen in the RAP process. Those connected to the resource are those invested in its regeneration and protection, as seen in Baltic Sea nongovernmental organizations commitment to clean up work [6]. Various scholars of social science point to the interdependency of people living in a community in developing their identity, sense of meaning, values, and economic well-being [39].…”

“…The 58th Meeting of the HELCOM Heads of Delegation was held online on 9-10 June 2020 and considered actions on the update of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), the main tool used by HELCOM for Baltic Sea resiliency [5]. At this meeting, the new target year for the achievement of actions in the BSAP was set to 2030 [5], with delay in implementation actions being attributed to gaps in governance [6].…”

Institutional Change and the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach: A Case Study of HELCOM and the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP)

“…Furthermore, research has found that the ecosystem approach has the potential to improve HELCOM's adaptive capacity [11]. In the case of HELCOM, the analysis of the institutional change following the efforts to apply the ecosystem approach is especially pertinent at a time when review of the BSAP implementation indicates that implementation actions are lagging behind the desired status [12,13]. It is also relevant as it can inform the dialogue on the update of the BSAP that will be announced in 2021.…”