| dc.contributor.advisor | Arbo, Peter | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sander, Gunnar | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-04-10T11:50:25Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-04-10T11:50:25Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-03-29 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is a holistic approach for nature management that aims at achieving the good health and sustainable use of ecosystems. It is a complex and challenging concept: understanding ecosystems and human impacts upon them is complicated, there are demanding needs for collaboration and harmonisation of approaches and policies, and many conflicting interests must be balanced. Thus, implementation of the concept has been slow.
EBM depends on assessments. The most relevant tool is strategic environmental assessment (SEA). SEA has a weak position in the international law of the sea. This mismatch between assessment needs and legal status of SEA may be addressed in the ongoing UN negotiations about biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The thesis work has compared how Norway and Canada have implemented EBM. In Norway, EBM has become a routine by the preparation of management plans. Most of the measures the Barents Sea management plan have been implemented, indicating that the plan has reduced pressures on the ecosystem. In Canada, two trial projects for EBM did not result in the implementation of any new measures for the management of the oceans. The different results can primarily be explained by the different roles of the two governments. The Norwegian aimed for a whole-of-government approach and led the planning in a top-down manner. The Canadian delegated the entire task according to a governance approach. The consensus-based collaborative planning that followed did not resolve conflicts and resulted in high-level strategic plans that were not implementable. As a contrast, the Norwegian government negotiated compromises over conflicts internally and managed to prepare a plan that was more concrete. These results contradicts the many recommendations of governance-based approaches in EBM. The results also rejects prior conclusions contending that national ocean policies based on law tend to be more successful than those solely based on executive action. | en_US |
| dc.description.doctoraltype | ph.d. | en_US |
| dc.description.popularabstract | Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is a holistic approach for nature management that aims at achieving the good health and sustainable use of ecosystems. A key undertaking is to assess the cumulative impacts of all human activities affecting an ecosystem. This should be the basis for prioritising and allocating responsibilities for taking action on influences that threatens good ecosystem health. It is a complex and challenging concept: understanding ecosystems and human impacts upon them is complicated, there are demanding needs for collaboration and harmonisation of approaches and policies, and there are many conflicting interests that need to be balanced. It should therefore be no surprise that implementation of the concept has been slow.
EBM originated on land in the US in the beginning of the 1990s and was introduced into the oceans some 10 years later. There seems to be agreement on its basic definitions, despite the many forms EBM takes when interpreted by different actors and adapted into different contexts. Several international organisations have made recommendations. These are clear on the need to assess ecosystem conditions. However, several of them are unclear when it comes to the formulation and implementation of policy measures that can address the negative influences on the ecosystems. The selection of policy is a political process, not a technical issue or an automatic result of knowledge about the state of the ecosystems. It is inevitable that disagreements will arise, possibly leading to conflicts, deadlock and unresolved ocean problems. While participation in planning is widely recommended, a critical issue seems to be how to avoid conflicts, and how to make decisions when conflicts arise.
EBM is strongly dependent on assessments. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a family of tools for assessing the impacts of strategic initiatives, often referred to as policies, plans and programmes. SEA is well suited for appraising cumulative impacts in regional assessments, which is a key undertaking in EBM. It also can contribute to making the results from EBM planning and decision-making mainstreamed into strategic initiatives of different sectors. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) assesses concrete project proposals. Its role in EBM is to follow up prior SEAs and strategic, ecosystem-based plans in assessments prior to the potential approval of projects.
International maritime and environmental law define obligations for states to undertake assessments. The Biodiversity Convention is the most relevant instrument in the Arctic Ocean because it is specific about SEA and EIA and applies to all maritime zones. Apart from this, there are very few legal obligations to undertake SEA. EIA, on the other hand, is a legally binding obligation, though it is unclear what this implies in practice. Thus, there is a mismatch in the assessment needs of EBM and the status of SEA in international law.
Implementing EBM will usually require some sort of national framework before planning for concrete ocean areas can begin. Norway introduced a policy for EBM in 2001 and has later made planning a routine in three management areas, one of which is the Barents Sea. The government prepared the Barents Sea management plan in a top-down manner. Most of the 157 measures in the plan have been put into practice. This indicates that the plan may have reduced the pressures on the ecosystem. Important reasons for the implementation results are the insights and political legitimacy achieved by a strong reliance on knowledge, the collaborative style of involving the relevant ministries and the handling of conflicts with authoritative decisions from a government in a majority position.
Canada enacted EBM obligations in 1996 and started trial projects in five ocean areas. The federal government delegated planning to the regional branches of one ministry alone. They worked with other government bodies and stakeholders in consensus-based collaborative planning. The plans for the Eastern Scotian Shelf and for the Placenta Bay/Grand Banks did not result in the implementation of any new policy measures. A major reason is that the federal Canadian government did not attempt to overcome administrative and political fragmentation by a whole-of-government approach. Moreover, the participants in the planning concealed disagreements and conflicts in high-level and non-committal statements, resulting in plans that were unclear and not implementable. Conflict with one minister and changes in the ocean policy of the Canadian government contributed to the closure of the two initiatives. Since 2013, integrated ocean management is no longer a priority in Canada.
The Canadian and Norwegian plans have been studied with a combination of implementation theory and case study methodology. This is a promising combination that can contribute to more systematic learning from such processes and better, empirically based recommendations on how to proceed in practice.
A major conclusions from the comparison of the cases is that the national governments should take an active leadership role in ecosystem-based management for large ocean areas. Another major conclusion is that collaborative planning by consensus according to a governance approach does not seem feasible for solving disagreements and conflicts, according to the Canadian experiences. Listening to stakeholders and subsequently negotiating compromises over conflicts within the government do, according to the Norwegian case. This is in contrast to many recommendations of governance-based approaches in EBM.
The case comparison also rejects general conclusions contending that national ocean policies formally embedded in law tend to be more successful in the longer term than those solely based on executive action. Even though a legal base may be needed in many jurisdictions, the cases rather demonstrate that the political will to address ocean conflicts is a critical factor for achieving results | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Dokorgraden er i sin helhet finansiert av BFE-fakultetet. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 978-82-8266-166-9 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/15191 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
| dc.publisher | UiT The Arctic University of Norway | en_US |
| dc.publisher | UiT Norges arktiske universitet | en_US |
| dc.relation.haspart | <p>Paper 1: Sander, G. (2016). International legal obligations for environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in the Arctic Ocean. <i>The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 31</i>(1), 88-119. The article is not available in Munin due to publisher restrictions. Published version available at <a href=https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341385>https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341385</a><p>
<p>Paper 2: Sander, G. (2018). Against all odds? Implementing a policy for ecosystem-based management of the Barents Sea. <i>Ocean and Coastal Management, 157</i>, 111 – 123. The article is available in the thesis introduction. Also available at <a href=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.020 >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.01.020. </a><p>
<p>Paper 3: Sander, G. (2018). Ecosystem-based management in Canada and Norway: The importance of political leadership and effective decision-making for implementation. <i>Ocean and Coastal Management, 163</i>, 485 – 497. The article is available in the thesis introduction. Also available at <a href=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.08.005> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.08.005. </a><p> | en_US |
| dc.rights.accessRights | openAccess | en_US |
| dc.rights.holder | Copyright 2019 The Author(s) | |
| dc.subject.courseID | DOKTOR-002 | |
| dc.subject | Samfunnsvitenskap | en_US |
| dc.subject | Havrett | en_US |
| dc.subject | Implementering | en_US |
| dc.subject | VDP::Social science: 200::Law: 340::Other subjects within law: 349 | en_US |
| dc.subject | VDP::Samfunnsvitenskap: 200::Rettsvitenskap: 340::Andre rettsvitenskapelige fag: 349 | en_US |
| dc.title | Implementation of ecosystem-based ocean management | en_US |
| dc.type | Doctoral thesis | en_US |
| dc.type | Doktorgradsavhandling | en_US |
English
norsk