30
prominent features. Global organisations such as IMO (the International Maritime
Organization) and ICES (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ),
however, also play important roles. The prominent role of international bodies
means that governance is signifi cantly a top-down approach.
When it comes to EU legislation, ND and UWWTD both aim at controlling and
reducing emissions in the aquatic environment from agriculture and municipalities,
respectively. However, even if ND clearly has led to decreased nitrogen emissions
from EU agriculture over time (Velthof et al. 2014 ), it has been considered far from
suffi cient, infl uencing, e.g. only a few percent of the nitrogen emissions from
manure management (HELCOM 2006b ). Similarly, UWWTD requirements are too
weak in relation to agreed objectives for the Baltic Sea (Schumacher 2011 ). Evident
shortcomings can be seen also in the case of WFD when it comes to obtaining the
good status objective by 2015 (European Commission 2012c ). Regarding the
MSFD , the implementation is still at an initial stage, but, for example, the defi nitions
of good ecological status for the so-called descriptor 5 for eutrophication (“humaninduced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as
losses in biodiversity , ecosystem degradation, harmful algae bloom and oxygen
defi ciency in bottom waters”) have been shown to mostly not be adequate (European
Commission 2014 ), including for the Baltic marine region (Milieu 2014 ).
Coordination of the many governmental bodies and regulatory frameworks at
EU, Baltic Sea and national levels is a further key structural challenge. A majority
of the interviewees saw signifi cant problems with overlapping roles and ineffectiveness among the actors involved in eutrophication governance in the Baltic Sea
region, for example, risks for duplicating similar measures (see also Tynkkynen
et al. 2014 ). Cooperation of multiple actors is required for the implementation of
policies to be successful at the regional level (Joas et al. 2007 ).
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) (European Commission
2009a ) is intended to stimulate much needed coordination and cooperation, by integrating different policies and directives in different areas. An important mechanism
of the strategy is the promotion of so-called fl agship projects with potentially high
macro-regional impact in terms of contributing to the fulfi lment of agreed objectives.
For example, linked to the priority areas of nutrients (PA Nutri), several fl agship
projects have been initiated, such as Baltic Deal, to promote practices to reduce
nutrient losses from agriculture and a fl agship project aiming to support the
implementation of HELCOM Recommendation 28E/7 on phasing out phosphates
in detergents.
7 However, also central to addressing eutrophication would be if the
strategy would help to coordinate MSFD and other environmentally focused tools
with policies that promote development of the agricultural sector, in particular the
referred CAP (European Commission 2011a ), but that is so far not done adequately.
While the strategy’s theoretical structure might seem carefully planned, some
interviewees stated that the programme might be too general and vague and too topdown regulated inside the EU. Regarding agriculture, the Commission’s action plan
to the strategy identifi es a need to mitigate nutrient losses, but the strategy and plan
7 See more about PA Nutri on http://groupspaces.com/eusbsr-nutrient-inputs/
M. Karlsson et al.
prominent features. Global organisations such as IMO (the International Maritime
Organization) and ICES (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ),
however, also play important roles. The prominent role of international bodies
means that governance is signifi cantly a top-down approach.
When it comes to EU legislation, ND and UWWTD both aim at controlling and
reducing emissions in the aquatic environment from agriculture and municipalities,
respectively. However, even if ND clearly has led to decreased nitrogen emissions
from EU agriculture over time (Velthof et al. 2014 ), it has been considered far from
suffi cient, infl uencing, e.g. only a few percent of the nitrogen emissions from
manure management (HELCOM 2006b ). Similarly, UWWTD requirements are too
weak in relation to agreed objectives for the Baltic Sea (Schumacher 2011 ). Evident
shortcomings can be seen also in the case of WFD when it comes to obtaining the
good status objective by 2015 (European Commission 2012c ). Regarding the
MSFD , the implementation is still at an initial stage, but, for example, the defi nitions
of good ecological status for the so-called descriptor 5 for eutrophication (“humaninduced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as
losses in biodiversity , ecosystem degradation, harmful algae bloom and oxygen
defi ciency in bottom waters”) have been shown to mostly not be adequate (European
Commission 2014 ), including for the Baltic marine region (Milieu 2014 ).
Coordination of the many governmental bodies and regulatory frameworks at
EU, Baltic Sea and national levels is a further key structural challenge. A majority
of the interviewees saw signifi cant problems with overlapping roles and ineffectiveness among the actors involved in eutrophication governance in the Baltic Sea
region, for example, risks for duplicating similar measures (see also Tynkkynen
et al. 2014 ). Cooperation of multiple actors is required for the implementation of
policies to be successful at the regional level (Joas et al. 2007 ).
The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) (European Commission
2009a ) is intended to stimulate much needed coordination and cooperation, by integrating different policies and directives in different areas. An important mechanism
of the strategy is the promotion of so-called fl agship projects with potentially high
macro-regional impact in terms of contributing to the fulfi lment of agreed objectives.
For example, linked to the priority areas of nutrients (PA Nutri), several fl agship
projects have been initiated, such as Baltic Deal, to promote practices to reduce
nutrient losses from agriculture and a fl agship project aiming to support the
implementation of HELCOM Recommendation 28E/7 on phasing out phosphates
in detergents.
7 However, also central to addressing eutrophication would be if the
strategy would help to coordinate MSFD and other environmentally focused tools
with policies that promote development of the agricultural sector, in particular the
referred CAP (European Commission 2011a ), but that is so far not done adequately.
While the strategy’s theoretical structure might seem carefully planned, some
interviewees stated that the programme might be too general and vague and too topdown regulated inside the EU. Regarding agriculture, the Commission’s action plan
to the strategy identifi es a need to mitigate nutrient losses, but the strategy and plan
7 See more about PA Nutri on http://groupspaces.com/eusbsr-nutrient-inputs/
M. Karlsson et al.