28
shortcomings in relation to environmental objectives (e.g. Baldock et al. 2002 ). The
European Commission indeed presented proposals in that direction (European
Commission 2011a ), even though they were seen as relatively minor steps (SBA
2012 ; SRU 2013 ; Allen and Hart 2013 ). However, as the regulatory process went on,
even these proposals were signifi cantly watered down (European Commission
2012a ; IEEP 2013 ), to the extent that the EU Environment Commissioner stated at
the end of the process that he could “only regret that the numerous exemptions,
loopholes and thresholds have made the greening so complicated and at the same
time have greatly lowered the level of environmental ambition
4
”.
In these regulatory contexts, the legislative process is dominated by co-decision,
meaning involvement of three large institutions, the European Commission, with its
monopoly to present legislative proposals, the Council and the European Parliament ,
being the key bodies negotiating and jointly adopting the fi nal laws. Much of the
implementation, however, rests with the member states, including the national
application of the CAP .
Besides legislation, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (European
Commission 2009a , 2012a ) aims at managing the Baltic Sea as a common resource
from several perspectives, including environmental issues. The strategy involves all
EU members bordering the Baltic Sea and also has the objective to govern EU
external issues, such as the relations with the Russian Federation , which contributes
signifi cantly to emissions responsible for eutrophication. The original 2009 strategy
underlined the need for concrete action instead of new institutions, and linked to the
strategy, the European Commission presented an “indicative action plan”, which
expressed “reduce nutrient inputs” as one of four priorities in the save the sea section of the plan (European Commission 2009b ). After evaluation (European
Commission 2011b ), the strategy was updated and renewed in 2012 (European
Commission 2012b ).
Turning to the regional Baltic level, the HELCOM operative body of the Helsinki
Convention has aimed since the 1970s to promote cooperation between the Baltic
Sea states and to monitor and assess the state of the marine environment. HELCOM
consists of the parties to the Helsinki Convention of 1974 and is governed both by
declarations adopted at infrequent ministerial meetings and by an operative body
with an offi ce in Helsinki, under which several staff and expert groups work on, e.g.
monitoring and assessment , as well as with drafting proposals on measures and
implementation.
5
Concerning eutrophication, the 1974 Convention contained (Annex 3) specifi ed
goals, criteria and measures for preventing land-based pollution , such as emissions
of nutrients from sewage water. A central target was then set in a 1988 Ministerial
Declaration (HELCOM 1988 ), which called for a 50 % reduction of nutrient
discharges to water and air between 1987 and 1995. In the 1992 renewed version of
the Convention, pollution from agriculture was included (Annex 3) as were quite
detailed provisions on, for instance, animal density, manure storage and fertilisers.
4 See, e.g. Janez Potocnik at https://twitter.com/janezpotocnik22/status/350610909284143104
5 See further at www.helcom.fi
M. Karlsson et al.
shortcomings in relation to environmental objectives (e.g. Baldock et al. 2002 ). The
European Commission indeed presented proposals in that direction (European
Commission 2011a ), even though they were seen as relatively minor steps (SBA
2012 ; SRU 2013 ; Allen and Hart 2013 ). However, as the regulatory process went on,
even these proposals were signifi cantly watered down (European Commission
2012a ; IEEP 2013 ), to the extent that the EU Environment Commissioner stated at
the end of the process that he could “only regret that the numerous exemptions,
loopholes and thresholds have made the greening so complicated and at the same
time have greatly lowered the level of environmental ambition
4
”.
In these regulatory contexts, the legislative process is dominated by co-decision,
meaning involvement of three large institutions, the European Commission, with its
monopoly to present legislative proposals, the Council and the European Parliament ,
being the key bodies negotiating and jointly adopting the fi nal laws. Much of the
implementation, however, rests with the member states, including the national
application of the CAP .
Besides legislation, the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (European
Commission 2009a , 2012a ) aims at managing the Baltic Sea as a common resource
from several perspectives, including environmental issues. The strategy involves all
EU members bordering the Baltic Sea and also has the objective to govern EU
external issues, such as the relations with the Russian Federation , which contributes
signifi cantly to emissions responsible for eutrophication. The original 2009 strategy
underlined the need for concrete action instead of new institutions, and linked to the
strategy, the European Commission presented an “indicative action plan”, which
expressed “reduce nutrient inputs” as one of four priorities in the save the sea section of the plan (European Commission 2009b ). After evaluation (European
Commission 2011b ), the strategy was updated and renewed in 2012 (European
Commission 2012b ).
Turning to the regional Baltic level, the HELCOM operative body of the Helsinki
Convention has aimed since the 1970s to promote cooperation between the Baltic
Sea states and to monitor and assess the state of the marine environment. HELCOM
consists of the parties to the Helsinki Convention of 1974 and is governed both by
declarations adopted at infrequent ministerial meetings and by an operative body
with an offi ce in Helsinki, under which several staff and expert groups work on, e.g.
monitoring and assessment , as well as with drafting proposals on measures and
implementation.
5
Concerning eutrophication, the 1974 Convention contained (Annex 3) specifi ed
goals, criteria and measures for preventing land-based pollution , such as emissions
of nutrients from sewage water. A central target was then set in a 1988 Ministerial
Declaration (HELCOM 1988 ), which called for a 50 % reduction of nutrient
discharges to water and air between 1987 and 1995. In the 1992 renewed version of
the Convention, pollution from agriculture was included (Annex 3) as were quite
detailed provisions on, for instance, animal density, manure storage and fertilisers.
4 See, e.g. Janez Potocnik at https://twitter.com/janezpotocnik22/status/350610909284143104
5 See further at www.helcom.fi
M. Karlsson et al.