Encouraging effective marine management & decision-making across borders

Transcription

1 Encouraging effective marine management & decision-making across borders Lessons and recommendations from the Celtic Seas 1. Introduction and background (Draft for Consultation) Whilst the natural marine environment knows no borders, human activity in our seas is subject to a plethora of national, administrative, and sectoral boundaries. The job of regulating and managing human marine activities to avoid conflict and ensure healthy and productive seas are sustained therefore represents a major challenge. The Celtic Sea Partnership Project 1 was established to help marine authorities, users and interests from across the EU MSFD Celtic Seas sub-region (see fig. 1 below) work harmoniously together across borders and sectoral boundaries, in ways which avoid conflict and support the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive s target of achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) in its seas by To support this aim, the project has developed best practice guidelines for: Transboundary Marine Governance, Co-location of Marine Renewables and other Marine Interests, and Marine Sectoral Interaction and Conflict Resolution which can be found at Fig. 1 The EU Celtic Seas Region 1 Funded by the EU Life+ Programme, project no. LIFE11 ENV/UK/392 2 Achieving Good Environmental Status is defined as achieving acceptable levels of 11 indicators or descriptors namely: biological diversity, non-indigenous species, commercial fish/shellfish populations, marine food webs, eutrophication, sea floor integrity, hydrographical conditions, contaminants, contaminants in fish & seafood, marine litter, noise (energy)

2 Purpose and focus of guidelines These best practice guidelines for Transboundary Marine Governance are specifically designed to help those dealing with the challenges of operating in, managing, and protecting the marine environment whilst working across national and administrative borders. These include central government departments, statutory agencies, local councils and other agencies with a statutory marine management remit, as well as other marine users and interests involved in non-statutory, transboundary marine management initiatives, such as voluntary marine and coastal partnership bodies which involve representatives from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Their content has been informed by extensive consultation with marine stakeholders from across a wide range of sectors in all of the countries and administrations in the Celtic Seas Region. This has included a total of 12 country workshop events (see for workshop reports) held in Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and France, two international workshop events in Liverpool and Paris and four, more detailed Case Study investigations. These Case Study investigations captured stakeholders experiences and lessons from four examples of Transboundary Marine Governance models; three of these were located in different parts of the Celtic Seas and one was located in the North Sea. (Irish Loughs Agency, Solway Firth Partnership, Cross-Channel Forum and the Wadden Sea). The Celtic Seas Partnership project is particularly concerned with understanding the most effective ways in which marine stakeholders and interests can be engaged and brought together to encourage constructive collaboration that delivers healthy, sustainable seas. The consultations and investigations undertaken to inform these guidelines and the recommendations and resources highlighted in them are therefore focussed particularly on addressing this challenge. 2

3 2. Recommendations for Effective Future Transboundary Governance Mechanisms From the stakeholder consultations, discussions, meetings and interviews carried out by the Celtic Seas Partnership project the following emerged as the key recommendations for making future transboundary marine governance more effective in the Celtic Seas, and by extension other transnational marine regions: The value and nature of both statutory and non-statutory governance mechanisms and forums needs to be recognised. Whilst the former may have more decision-making weight and impact on specific transboundary issues, they may find themselves constrained by the limitations of their legal remit in looking comprehensively at the full breadth of issues necessary. The latter may have the advantage of being more flexible and able to look at transboundary issues more holistically in a less formal environment. This less formal environment is more conducive to the building of trust and effective working relationships, which are key to effective governance. The experience and value of existing transboundary networks and forums should be built upon rather than reinventing or overlooking when considering new or improved structures. To be effective, it is vital that transboundary governance structures are resourced and sustainable. At a time of significant pressures on resources, it is sensible to capitalise and build upon existing structures with experience. Combining economic, social and environmental agendas may be a way to bring in the resources that are needed for such structures. From experience, the following are considered to be desirable features for future Transboundary Marine Governance structures involving multiple stakeholders: o Good coordination ideally with dedicated staff, providing continuity and resources to manage differing agendas/priorities o Enabling informal regular exchange of experience between administrations o Having commitment and buy-in from stakeholders o Delivering clear guaranteed outputs/benefits, thereby encouraging support from stakeholders o Making use of champions o Establishing mechanisms to bring siloed sectors together, including linking existing sectoral groups and trade associations to other stakeholders outside their sector 3

4 o Establishing appropriate structures (e.g. sub-groups) to deal with the wide variety of issues faced in the Celtic Seas. A single structure or forum may not be able to cope with the full variety of issues which need to be tackled 3. The Challenges of Transboundary Marine Governance From the stakeholder consultations, discussions, meetings and interviews carried out by the Celtic Seas Partnership project to capture experiences and perspectives on transboundary marine governance in the Celtic Seas, the following emerged as the key transboundary challenges and issues faced Structural, technical, legislative challenges Aligning the different agendas, processes, plans and timetables of the different administrations and non-compatibility of these different agendas, policy priorities and processes (It was also acknowledged, however, that different administrations being at different stages in the same processes can give rise to positive learning opportunities) Understanding who is responsible for which roles within different administrations, and the different structures within them Negotiating differences between legislation and regulating and enforcement agencies in the different administrations on either side of the border Working across different layers and levels of administration at local, regional and national level and the challenge posed by the difference in the influence exerted by different levels. Also the challenge of different levels of administration talking coherently to other levels (e.g. Challenge of representing UK perspective at EU level whilst reflecting the different circumstances throughout the constituent administrations) Dealing with the inconsistency of approaches between regions and countries, for example due to differing fisheries legislation, different conservation approaches Shifting points of cross-border contact between Department s agencies (perhaps where no clear equivalent exists on both sides) Dealing with uncertainties around borders/jurisdiction an illustrative example would be the Tunes Plateau windfarm proposal off the coast of Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland where the location of border on the sea bed was unclear and the jurisdictional issue was addressed by an Memorandum of Understanding on Renewable Energy Development agreed between the two governments Dealing with different approaches to scientific data collection on either side of borders The challenge of cross border enforcement which can be more difficult than crossborder management The lack of existing cross-border forums 4

5 Stakeholder engagement and relationship-building Overcoming a prevailing mindset which sees working across borders as a necessary challenge rather than a positive opportunity Negotiating differences in culture, language, terminology, norms, politics. For example, authorities in France tend to have a more centralised approach requiring sign off from the (national) centre compared with a more devolved approach in the UK. These cultural differences can manifest themselves in the challenge of developing a common understanding of concepts like Ecosystem Services, Adaptive Management. Nevertheless, it was also recognised that the cultural (and particularly language) differences between countries in the Celtic Seas region probably pose fewer challenges than in many other EU regional seas. Securing trust between different marine stakeholders and interests, changing entrenched viewpoints, securing buy-in to engagement processes and structures. Having sufficient opportunities for stakeholders from different sectors to have contact with one another, develop their understanding of each other and identify common interests Stakeholders receiving sufficient levels of information and having sufficient levels of influence Reaching out to wider stakeholders and the general public with information that is accessible and understandable Reaching agreement on aims and objectives Reliance on relationships built on particular individuals who move on Challenges of Scale Dealing with the scale of the Celtic Seas Region and the challenge of finding common interests between such dispersed regions within it Managing the cross-border impacts of decisions Finding space to accommodate activities within the Celtic Sea Region Impacts of wider policies Dealing with the logic of Blue Growth (the prevailing policy of many administrations) which inherently encourages competition rather than co-operation The impact of wider EU policies to promote transboundary working (for example, Marine Spatial Planning Directive, Reformed Common Fisheries Policy) Dealing with uncertainty around future constitutional changes (e.g. Possible Scottish independence, UK withdrawal from EU) 5

6 Financial challenges Securing sufficient funding for mechanisms and activities to support transboundary working, especially at a time of tight budgetary restraints 4. Ingredients for successful transboundary governance From their experience, stakeholders have identified the following as key ingredients for successful transboundary governance - Being active in engaging in transboundary and cross-sectoral forums, speaking to neighbours, using informal networks to build relationships Holding bi- and tri- lateral meetings between government officials at EU regional level to build relationships (outside formal meetings). E.g. between UK/IRL national policy officers of British-Irish Council Using experienced, unbiased facilitators Drawing evidence together which all stakeholders can support Recognising the impact of having particular actors in the room on the tone and nature of the discussion and its conduciveness to allowing open, informal discussion to build working relationships and trust, versus formal reporting (e.g. EU Member State Government representatives meeting each other versus meeting each other and European Commission representatives at the same time) Recognising the risk of, and avoiding, stakeholder fatigue Allowing everyone to have their say Having financial resources to support mechanisms to engage and involve stakeholders in transboundary governance Capitalising on disasters (ie turning problems into opportunities to develop more effective working) Building on successful projects (but not relying on individuals who may move on) 5. Existing transboundary mechanisms Stakeholders assessment The stakeholders who were consulted believe that the current mechanisms for transboundary governance within and across the Celtic Seas are not as effective as they should be. Links and communication between officials in different Celtic Seas authorities are not uniformly made across the Celtic Seas. For example, linkages are made between officials from the multiple marine planning organisations in the devolved countries of the UK, Republic of Ireland, and the Isle of Man but less so with officials in France. The geographical coverage, level and remit of existing statutory transboundary marine management bodies in the Celtic Seas vary greatly, ranging from the high level, political British-Irish Council which includes the UK, Ireland and the Channel Islands to the Irish Cross-Border Loughs Agency, with a focused legislative, management, promotion and 6

7 enforcement remit for the cross-border sea loughs between Northern Ireland (UK) and the Republic of Ireland. Other transboundary bodies such as the Atlantic Arc Commission have a paid membership and so not all areas/authorities are included. Initiatives such as the Celtic Seas SimCelt project ( Supporting Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Celtic Seas EU Project funded by Directorate General (DG) Mare) may shed further light on current shortcomings and suggest recommendations to improve them. 6. Summary of existing Celtic Seas transboundary governance mechanisms, guidance, and other useful resources, contacts and information Existing Statutory Transboundary Marine Governance Structures There are a limited number of existing statutory transboundary governance mechanisms with a marine remit, namely - The Loughs Agency - Northern Ireland (UK)/Republic of Ireland border (Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle). Model of Marine (and freshwater) management and protection across two jurisdictions (NI and ROI) working with two legislative systems to deliver healthy ecosystems. See The British-Irish Council - UK/Republic of Ireland/IOM/Channel Islands. A statutory mechanism, established as part of the 1998 Belfast/ Good Friday Northern Ireland peace agreement to co-ordinate co-operation between the governments of two EU member States (UK & ROI) plus the non-eu UK crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands North Western Waters Advisory Council (NWWAC) - EU North Western Waters (ICES areas Vb (EC waters), VI, VII). EU transboundary advisory council designed to bring together stakeholders to advise the European Commission on matters of fisheries management in respect of the North Western Waters - ICES areas Vb (EC waters), VI, VII. Existing Statutory Transboundary Governance Guidance/Legal requirements There are also a limited number of statutory requirements for collaboration between countries in the Celtic Seas region in managing the marine environment, namely Legal provisions of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and Marine Spatial Planning Directive which require Members States to collaborate across their borders The OSPAR Regional Sea Convention (See ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) guidance to support sustainable use of the seas (See: Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (covers UK countries) 7

8 Non-statutory Transboundary Marine Governance Forums and Structures These include - Irish Sea Maritime Forum - (England/Scotland/Wales/Isle of Man/Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland). Bringing together marine stakeholders from all countries surrounding the Irish Sea, the Irish Sea Maritime Forum held its inaugural Conference in Belfast in June The overarching Vision of the Irish Sea Maritime Forum is: An Irish Sea which has a healthy marine environment, coherent energy policy, safe clean and efficient transport and sustainable fisheries and is managed to deliver sustainable development for the benefit of all. Solway Firth Partnership Scotland/England (See Case Studies below) Severn Estuary Partnership Wales/England Cross-Channel Forum (CAMIS/PEGASEAS) England/France (See Case Studies below) North-West and North Wales Coastal Group - North-West England/North Wales. Multiagency partnership across national/administrative boundary for coastal change management ICES WG Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Western Waters ROI/UK/France/Spain/ Portugal. Transboundary integrated approach to ecosystem assessment Specific examples of recent and live transboundary challenges in the Celtic Seas Moyle (electricity) Interconnector - (N. Ireland/Scotland). Developed following agreement between NI Electricity and Scottish Power. Its operations are now managed overseen by Mutual Energy Ltd. The Moyle Interconnector links the electricity grids of Northern Ireland and Scotland through submarine cables East-West (electricity) Interconnector - (Republic of Ireland/Wales) Developed by the Irish national grid operator EirGrid. The East West Interconnector is a high-voltage direct current submarine and subsoil power cable which connects the British and Irish electricity markets. Alderney/Normandy transboundary challenges France/Channel Islands. Licensing of marine renewables projects, co-located with multiple marine stakeholders and across Channel Island and French jurisdictions Examples of Transboundary Marine Governance Plans and Agreements Severn Estuary Strategy Plan (England/Wales) BOTNIA plan for the Baltic Sea (a project which used the Bothnian Sea between Sweden and Finland as a trial case study for transboundary marine spatial planning) Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland: o MOU on all-island renewable developments o Cross-border Loughs Agency Advisory Forum and Focus groups o Cross-Border Crime Task Force 8

9 NASCO (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation) model - a binding treaty requiring signatory countries to provide a funding pot to support measures for North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Scotland s National Marine Plan binding on issues reserved to the UK Government following agreement with UK Ministers. Transnational projects relevant to Transboundary Marine Governance Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic (TPEA) Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Spain/Portugal CAMIS/PEGASEAS England/France CAMIS (Channel Arc Manche Integrated Strategy) - project to develop an integrated maritime strategy for the French/English Channel area. PEGASEAS (Promoting Effective Governance of the Channel Ecosystems) - project to promote effective governance of the Channel ecosystem Ireland Wales Territorial Co-operation Programme (INTERREG 4A) - Republic of Ireland Government/Welsh Government, regional and local authorities, the environmental sector, Social Partners and the European Commission. The Ireland Wales Territorial Co-operation Programme (INTERREG 4A) aimed to further develop Irish Welsh co-operation in the areas of employment, innovation, climate change and sustainable development. Under its environment stand this included supporting transboundary projects to develop renewable alternative energy sources/ biofuels and sustainable management & protection of habitats MAIA (MPAs in the Atlantic Arc) - Azores (Portugal) to Shetlands (Scotland). Atlantic partnership project to co-ordinate MPAs across national boundaries ISLES Scotland/Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland. Interreg project to provide a transboundary planning framework for the development of marine renewables between Scotland, N. Ireland, Republic of Ireland Non-marine models of transnational working with possible transferable lessons The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) EU Water Framework Directive International River Basin Management Plans 7. Detailed Case Studies From an initial long list (see Appendix 1), four examples of existing transboundary marine governance mechanisms from across the Celtic Seas were selected as Case Studies for further investigation, in order to identify useful experience, lessons and recommendations for effective transboundary governance. These were as follows - I. The Cross-Channel Forum (Eng/France) A non-statutory cross-border marine management mechanisms involved in a number of EU-funded projects 9

10 II. III. IV. The Loughs Agency (Northern Ireland (UK)/Republic of Ireland) A statutory regulator and enforcement body with a remit for elements of cross-border marine management in two cross-border sea loughs (Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough) Solway Firth Partnership (Eng/Scotland) A non-statutory cross-border stakeholder engagement and management mechanism Wadden Sea (Germany, Denmark, Netherlands) A non-statutory model of crossborder marine management in a neighbouring EU regional sea (Greater North Sea) I. Cross-channel Forum Background The Cross Channel Forum/Forum de la Manche was established as part of the CAMIS project (Channel Arc Manche Integrated Strategy) funded under the European Interreg IVA France (Manche) - England programme EU Interreg programme. The aim of this project was to develop an integrated maritime strategy for the Channel area and tools promoting Franco-British cooperation covering governance, maritime economy, transport, maritime safety and knowledge of the Channel area. The CAMIS project and the Cross-Channel Forum built upon cooperation developed under the earlier EMDI project (Channel Area Development Initiative) developed as part of the North-Western Europe Interreg III B programme between 2004 and PEGASEAS (Promoting Effective Governance of the Channel Ecosystems) was a 23-month INTERREG IVA capitalisation project (April 2013 to February 2015) between France and the United Kingdom, 10

11 the purpose of which was to promote effective governance of the Channel ecosystems, by identifying the results, conclusions and lessons arising from cooperative cross-channel projects. Stakeholders Involved and Challenges Identified The stakeholders involved in the Cross-Channel Forum and the aforementioned EMDI, CAMIS and PEGASEAS projects can be grouped as follows: Political and decision-making sphere: regional authorities, institutional decision-makers at national and international level Sphere of economic activities and special interests: ports, fishermen, aggregate extraction companies, the RME sector (Renewable Marine Energy), the leisure sector, environmental preservation organisations (French Protected Marine Areas Agency, environmental protection associations) Scientific sphere: research bodies, universities Two major areas of challenge these stakeholders face with regard to the cross-border governance in the English Channel are: Institutional challenges and difficulty in recognising the status of the Channel Arc There is a compartmentalisation of responsibilities within each country, with no structure enabling the coherent deliberation on cross-border management of the Channel area. The Channel Arc, a geographical area comprising all the British and French regions along the English Channel, was created as an initiative to respond to this institutional challenge.. Since 2003, Channel Arc has also become a political project based on an informal and voluntary network of local authorities that exchange best practice, coordinate initiatives and develop ideas for projects that could be financed using European funds. But this geographical entity is not officially recognised. The Channel Arc Regional Assembly has the role of demonstrating the benefit and special nature of the Channel area as a coherent area of regional cooperation and to gain European Union recognition for its added value. Sector specific challenges There is no overall Channel-wide cross-sector vision. Some sector-based approaches are positive and have proven their effectiveness over past decades (e.g. in fields of maritime safety: The Anglo- French Joint Maritime Contingency Plan for the English Channel (Mancheplan) or fishing: 4 Regional Consultative Committees), but they do not meet the need for a cross-sector vision. Mechanisms, activities and approaches adopted to address management challenges and deliver positive outcomes The purpose of the CAMIS project was to define directions for implementing an integrated maritime policy in the Channel area and for testing maritime governance tools. Two key initiatives have resulted from this project: An integrated maritime strategy was produced in order to reply to the specific issues of the Channel area. This strategy aims to develop a common Franco-British approach to the management and development of this maritime basin, taking into account the different sectors 11

12 as well as the necessity to preserve its environments and resources. This strategy is organised into three themes: o Strategic theme 1: Strengthen governance and cooperation to improve management and development of resources in the Channel area. o Strategic theme 2: Implement a consistent regional approach to respond to the issues at Channel scale. o Strategic theme 3: Promote sustainable development in coastal regions of the Channel area. This strategy includes an action plan. Its aim is to implement these major strategic directions operationally. It comprises 23 actions to be implemented during the programming period for European funds. Drawing up the integrated maritime strategy relied extensively on contributions from those involved in the maritime and inshore communities, notably by means of four meetings of the 'Cross-Channel Forum' (Forum de la Manche) organised throughout the project. This 'Cross-Channel Forum', with experience of the CAMIS project, formed a platform for expression and exchanges for all French and British maritime and coastal parties interested in the future of this area (representatives from the local communities, State and European institutions, stakeholders in the maritime economy, research and innovation, higher education and the environment). Today it represents the only place that brings together all of these players to deal with cross-border problems or the common interests of this maritime basin. The Cross- Channel Forum evolved logically through the PEGASEAS project. As part of the two projects, CAMIS and PEGASEAS, a total of seven Forums were organised. The PEGASEAS project enabled several documents about Cross-Channel governance to be drawn up: o Audit of the results from INTERREG IVA projects on governance of the English Channel (matrix of project results and drafting a compendium entitled 'Towards better governance of the Channel ecosystem') o Report on the institutional framework of governance and current and future policies for the Channel, entitled 'Report on Channel regulations' o Mapping of governance for the Channel maritime area: with the production of 5 diagrams, each developed from the outcomes of the different INTERREG IVA projects and a considerable contribution from the stakeholders. Diagrams 1 to 3 show the international and European legal and political commitments applying in the English Channel and the way these commitments are implemented on each side of the Channel. Diagrams 4 and 5 show the complex institutional frameworks (responsibilities and processes) of the French and English sides of the Channel, frameworks that are predominantly sectorial and, consequently, presented as such, highlighting relevant strategic documents. o Completion of the first online public survey specifically covering the environment of the Channel area, to gather the viewpoints of people living in and visiting the Channel area. o Good Governance Guide intended for decision-makers in the marine environment. It has been structured around three of the most important legal and political 12

13 o instruments for the Channel area: the marine environment strategy framework Directive, the common fisheries policy and the Directive on maritime space scheduling. The experiences and observations presented in this guide seek to develop the advantages of cooperative governance of the Channel and to reduce problems caused by a lack of coordination. The key message of this guide is that to preserve the environmental, social and economic advantages offered by the Channel area over the long term, it is necessary to govern this unique maritime system in an overall and coordinated manner. Objectives for effective cooperation and communication, and particularly joint mechanisms for governance, will be needed. The deliverables from the PEGASEAS project have been communicated to the public and local stakeholders through local capitalisation events and innovative use of the media by means of a series of radio broadcasts covering relevant problems and 12 local capitalisation events for stakeholders and local decision-makers. Views of stakeholders on mechanisms, approaches and lessons to be drawn The Forum of parties involved in the Channel is the first brick in constructing a governance model that enabled an intersectoral and cross-border vision to be developed. But this should go beyond the aspect of debates and sharing experience. This Forum must now change status. o It must become a sustainable structure, independent of the projects through which it has been created. o It should involve the main decision-makers from both sides of the Channel (e.g. Inter-regional Maritime Department (DIRM) in France; Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Department for Environment Food and Rural Affaires (DEFRA) in England). Although they have been invited to take part in this Forum, these parties have not really taken part in the dialogue. The populations are not sufficiently involved in this consultation. MARINEXUS, Interreg France- Manche-England programme, was one of the rare projects targeted at the general public: its aim was to inform the public about marine ecosystems in the Western Channel (and their ability to deal with the effects of human activity) and about climate change. There is a nervousness within central governments about the development of the cross-channel governance approach. This lack of interest derives partly from the fact that there is not much bilateral discussion on the subject, and that these exchanges are generally based on one or two people in ministries. We are seeing intensified contacts between French and British parties involved (e.g. between universities). There is one community that finishes by being created. People meet and share a common vision of the Channel area, with practical collaborative projects. But this cooperation remains fragile because it is linked to the ups and downs of these programmes. The PEGASEAS project, by analysing project clusters, has established gateways between all the existing projects on the Channel area. 13

14 Recommendations for Effective Transboundary Governance Mechanisms CAMIS has demonstrated the importance of the transparent nature of the governance in seeking an agreement on actions affecting the marine environment. The Cross-Channel Forum has shown the point at which it was necessary to listen to everyone involved in large governance structures or small organisations and to discuss these contributions in the form of an open debate. In the future it would be useful if the tools developed in the CAMIS projects were reexamined and refined in order to establish them in the longer term as a means of participative governance. The analysis of projects examined by the PEGASEAS cluster enabled key lessons to be drawn to support effective maritime governance, whether at cross-channel level and more generally at European scale. The results are grouped into 6 topics in a compendium: Operation and management of marine ecosystems, Management and use of information and data, Activities and pressures on the marine environment, Multi-level governance in the Channel, Partnerships, Communication and involvement of stakeholders. A guide containing recommendations for effective governance of the Channel was then drawn up. These documents are accessible online: Fran%C3%A7aise.pdf In the tradition of the PEGASEAS project, it will be important to continue knowledge sharing programmes. But it will also be necessary to broach an institutional step: the creation of enduring governance structures recognised by the authorities. Many tools have been created as part of the different INTERREG projects (e.g. data sharing, internet sites, etc.), however political will of the two States to go further is lacking (e.g. set up a Channel Maritime Council). The Celtic Seas Partnership project (CSP), although very focused on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), is taking part in cross-channel and intersectoral appropriation of the maritime area of the Channel / Celtic Seas for the same reasons as the CAMIS and PEGASEAS projects. These 'bottom up' initiatives for consultation with civil society offer everyone the possibility of becoming involved in governance. There needs to be agreement on transboundary monitoring of marine MPAs, which are costly to monitor, so as to avoid duplication and reduce costs. A best practice template for doing this should be developed. (For further background information on this issue see ) 14

15 II. The Loughs Agency Background The Loughs Agency is an agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC), established as one of the cross-border bodies under the 1998 Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland. The Agency aims to provide sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits through the effective conservation, management, promotion and development of the fisheries and marine resources of the Foyle and Carlingford Areas (see map above). The Agency has a number of strategic and operational functions which are set out in the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (NI) Order 1999, the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999, the Foyle Fisheries Act (NI) 1952 (as amended) and the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 (as amended). Under the Agreement, the Agency took over the fisheries protection functions of the Foyle Fisheries Commission and was given both an additional cross-border operational area in Carlingford and the additional functions of developing aquaculture and marine tourism. The Agency s governing legislation confers the following specific functions: the promotion of development of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough for commercial and recreational purposes in respect of marine, fishery and aquaculture matters; the management, conservation, protection, improvement and development of the inland fisheries of the Foyle and Carlingford Areas; the development and licensing of aquaculture; and the development of marine tourism Drivers for marine governance in the area governed by the Loughs Agency include both EU Directives and domestic legislation. The Agency notes that since Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland do not implement EU Directives at the same time or in the same way that this can potentially lead to situations where Directives are enforced through primary legislation in one state but not necessarily enforced through the primary legislation in another state, or are enforced differently creating a specific issue in relation to ensuring marine governance on both sides of the border. 15

16 Stakeholders in case study area and challenges identified The key stakeholders in the area governed by the Loughs Agency are NGOs, environmental support groups, commercial fisheries, angling and tourism groups as well as the scientific community on both sides of the border. The main marine governance challenges identified include the interactions between fisheries and shellfisheries, data integration, scientific sharing and the overlap and interaction of European legislation which can at times be contradictory e.g. in relation to the management of Atlantic salmon and that for seals and otters which are both predators on Atlantic salmon, as well as other interactions e.g. marine conservation zones and shellfish fishermen where there tends to be a tension. A key challenge identified by the Agency of operating at the geographical area it does is ensuring that science and enforcement within a cross-border area is effective and joined-up. It must seek to ensure that stakeholders - who can be extremely varied across Aquaculture, Marine Tourism, Angling and Commercial Fishing - all have a voice and a method of communication with the Agency, while also trying ensure that governance and legislation is undertaken to appropriate standards on both sides of the border. The division of responsibilities makes it difficult to ensure effective marine governance, particularly as wild species tend to freely travel across marine boundaries without consideration, making the development of management plans and the management of these ecosystems extremely difficult in these areas The promotion of Good Environmental Status creates difficulties where there is a significant interaction between cross-border groups and particularly where national definitions vary and where government structures vary across the border areas. A massive problem of data integration exists where systems are different on both sides of the border e.g. mechanisms for evaluating seal numbers. Furthermore, the enforcement of fisheries and the engagement of fisheries stakeholders falls within different structures on both sides of the border. Mechanisms, activities and approaches adopted to address management challenges and deliver positive outcomes The Loughs Agency model of trans-boundary governance uses an Advisory Forum made up of 50 stakeholder groups from the voluntary, commercial and tourism sectors. It also has a Board made up of political parties on both sides of the border which ensures that the stakeholders have a consistent voice with regard to the policies and research implemented through the Agency. Stakeholder views on above approach/mechanisms and lessons The above structures and the simultaneous passing of legislation through the North-South Ministerial Council on both sides of the border has proven an effective method of governance. The principal difficulties encountered with this have been that the passing of legislation through two different administrations requires a degree of bureaucracy which at times can slow the process considerably. Key lessons for effective cross-border marine governance learned from the experience of the Loughs Agency and its structures include: 16

17 the importance of stakeholder engagement the value of having a cross-border Advisory Forum, which the Agency believes has been an exemplary method of achieving consistency in developing a marine governance protocol for Foyle and Carlingford areas in particular. having an open and transparent evidence base implementing scientific management based on the above Recommendations for Effective Transboundary Governance Mechanisms Based on the lessons and experiences of the Loughs Agency case study the following should be included as recommendations for effective cross-border marine governance and included in best practice cross-border governance guidelines for the Celtic Seas Region as a whole (and beyond) Effective cross-border marine governance should be underpinned by engagement with all relevant marine stakeholders from both sides of the border Establishing a cross-border stakeholder advisory forum, with a wide representation to allow stakeholders to feed in their knowledge and views can not only ensure an informed approach to marine governance but one that is consistent across different jurisdictions and functions Such a forum can also be used to be generate topic specific focus groups to hold detailed discussions on particular issues (the Loughs Agency currently operates four of these under the following themes: Salmon and Inland Fisheries; Aquaculture and Shellfisheries; Marine Tourism; and Environment). A governing Board including political representative from both sides of the border can ensure a consistent and accountable approach to the implementation of policy on both sides of the border. Such a structure could also potentially encourage better co-ordination in the implementation of legislation by the different jurisdictions thereby reducing the difficulties posed by inconsistent timing and differences of approach An open and transparent evidence base together with mechanisms to involve the scientific community on both sides of the border is vital to underpin scientific decision-making. 17

18 III. Solway Firth Partnership Background The Solway Firth crosses the border between Scotland and England and is close to the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, which have their own marine legislation and management arrangements. The Scottish side of the Firth is one of Scotland s 11 marine regions. The English side of the Solway is regulated by the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Scottish side is regulated by the Marine (Scotland) Act Although there are many similarities between the two acts, there are also differences. For marine planning purposes it has been agreed that the Solway Firth will be treated as one entity and both governments have committed to a joined up cross border planning process. The measures in the agreement included joint stakeholder consultation and communication between Governments throughout the planning process, the publication of a single planning document, a seamless approach to marine spatial planning for the Solway Firth and clear articulation on how the two planning regimes interact and integrate. 18

19 Figure 1 Map and location of Solway Firth The sectoral interests of the Solway are diverse and include: a diverse mixed fishery, which in turn provides employment in Cumbria and in Dumfries and Galloway; renewable energy opportunities in the Solway, including the 60-turbine Robin Rigg offshore wind farm and further sites identified for future renewable developments; recreation & tourism, including recreational angling and shipping The estuary is a Ramsar site (internationally designated wetland) and the inner Solway is designated as a special protection area under the European Union Birds Directive and as a Special Area of Conservation. The English side of the Solway was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty in 1964 and three national scenic areas were designated on the Scottish side 20 years ago. The area also includes a number of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest. The Solway Firth Partnership (SFP) was established in 1994 is an independent charity that works to support the sustainable development of the Solway Firth whilst protecting the special qualities of the local marine and coastal area. The Solway Firth Partnership has a broad membership and its role is one of facilitation and mediation between interests. In response to the threat of invasive non-native species present or entering the Solway Firth the Solway Firth Partnership developed a plan To establish a sustainable framework for preventing, detecting and controlling marine invasive non-native species within the Solway Firth Partnership area through appropriate management, data collection, liaison and education. Stakeholders in case study area and challenges identified The key stakeholders in the area governed by the Solway Firth Partnership are; government agencies, e.g. Marine Scotland, Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), NWIFCA, Natural England, Local 19

20 Authorities, ports, commercial fisheries, renewable energy sector, angling and tourism groups, NGOs, environment support groups and the scientific community on both sides of the border. The main marine governance challenges identified are: Different marine legislation and management arrangements result in different ways of prioritising e.g. budget spend, research priorities etc. on either side of the border. A particular challenge is that governance structures either side of the border are not mirror images of each other and there is a need for stakeholders to understand the structure of both administrations e.g. MMO and the NWIFCA on English side, Marine Scotland and the IFG on Scottish side. This challenge has been exacerbated for some stakeholders by budget cuts to the public sector which has resulted in a lack of capacity for engagement. Cross border funding issues, such as: supporting the Solway Firth Partnership and implementing management measures; resources sometimes available on one side of the Solway and absent on the other; extra resource required and duplication of effort when there is a need to apply for different funds on either side of the border to ensure cross border delivery of projects Enforcement and its co-ordination across the boundaries is more complicated as more agencies are involved and stakeholder intelligence is not as easily accessed across borders Geographical distance between stakeholders Timing of administrative goals/timelines not in sync Ecosystems do not observe boundaries and so a co-ordinated and holistic approach to marine management is necessary. Raising stakeholder awareness of Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Good Environmental Status including what the implications of these could be. Lack of awareness makes it difficult for people to see what opportunities that MSFD may provide to support good marine management in the Solway Cross border planning for Marine Spatial Planning it will be hard to integrate statutory marine plans within the Solway. Managing cross border developments such as renewables this includes existing developments as well as future developments. Co-ordinating monitoring programmes, sharing data and ensuring it is collected in a consistent manner and compatible formats. Challenges specific to management of non-indigenous species: Potential of different regulations & protocols on either side of the border Sharing information/knowledge/data between the different administrative bodies. Securing funding for measures to control non indigenous species on trans boundary basis is more complicated as there is a need to avoid duplication of effort and ensure that projects are funded and delivered across boundaries consistently. Uncertainty about the degree to which governance arrangements would work in the case of different marine emergency situations and the degree to which this has been tested Non indigenous species do not respect boundaries therefore any control mechanisms put in place must be consistent 20

21 Biosecurity and planning Invasive Non Native Species are, in many circumstances, voluntary this can make it hard to get people to commit to take on additional work. However, there are some statutory requirements, e.g. Policy GEN 10 in Scotland s National Marine Plan. Mechanisms, activities and approaches adopted by case study to address management challenges and deliver positive outcomes The Solway Firth Partnership is seen as the key mechanism for addressing the management challenges. Keys to its success include: its role in bringing people together; it being a vehicle for communication; it is apolitical and does not engage in lobbying. The Partnership Manager engages regularly with local structures and meetings e.g. Inshore Fishery Group meetings, NWIFCA meetings on both sides of the border to enable effective communication and maintain relationships. The duty to co-operate drives discussion on some cross boundary matters, and the existence of the Solway Firth Partnership and other existing partnerships support this. For non-indigenous species: Marine Invasive Non-Native Species seminar that was run by the partnership was useful in developing and agreeing a biosecurity protocol for invasive non-native species. It helped stakeholders from across the border develop a shared understanding of the issues relating to biosecurity Regarded as useful by stakeholders that the Solway Firth Partnership produced a biosecurity plan first and then local plans were developed to complement this. Stakeholder views on above approach/mechanisms and lessons Respondents felt that Solway Firth Partnership was a useful organisation in the Solway with the Advisory Group being a good place for discussion/networking across the border. Stakeholders felt the partnership has played a key role in enabling good communication. The partnership has had strong support from the relevant authorities and this has been key to its success. In terms of developing the INNS plan stakeholders felt that is was useful that the policy was not too prescribed and that there was an opportunity for their biosecurity plan to be shaped to fit local circumstances. Stakeholders felt the partnership was particularly helpful in raising the awareness of INNS. Recommendations for Effective Transboundary Governance Mechanisms Stakeholder identified the following specific recommendations for future mechanisms for Transboundary Marine Governance, both for the Solway Firth Partnership and generally Establish a forum such as Solway Firth Partnership with core funding, where representatives from organisations that have a governance responsibility can come together to share and discuss work being carried out. Recognise that good partnership working takes time and investment to build and maintain. 21

22 Raising awareness and understanding through the partnership helps to reduce conflict and helps to encourage sustainable solutions. Facilitate dialogue with impartiality. Translate national policy into local context and opportunity. Agreement on overarching management plans at early stage so that complimentary local plans can be developed. Streamlining and harmonisation of legislation and policies to ensure that activity on the ground is joined up across any administrative boundaries. In terms of managing INNS: It is vital to maintain an early warning and rapid response approach between borders so that horizon scanning is effective and effective contingency plans are developed for new species that may arrive in the marine environment. A strategic approach needs to be taken to address geographical gaps so that efficacy of control is maximised and the risk of re-infestation is minimised. Communication between organisations that have similar remits on each side of the border is vital. All relevant stakeholders must be kept aware of any meetings/discussion/proposals right from the beginning. For INNS management: A procedure of steps to follow (code of practice) including contacts names and telephone numbers (including key contacts on either side of the boundary), should any non-indigenous species be located in marine waters. The Solway Firth Partnership has produced an ID guide for marine INNS in the Solway Firth (inc species that Solway is at risk from) which includes contacts for reporting/recording on both sides of Solway 22

23 IV. Wadden Sea Wadden Sea area and habitats Background The Wadden Sea is located in the southern North Sea. It is shared between The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark (see map above). The first tri-lateral agreement between the three Member States to protect the Wadden Sea dates from However, the intention of this agreement had to be enacted through national, and in later years European legislation. The Wadden Sea is now fully protected. For example, in Germany it has National Park designation, and almost the entire Wadden Sea falls within a number of Natura 2000 sites. In 1991 the three countries decided that the Guiding Principle of the trilateral Wadden Sea policy is to achieve, as far as possible, a natural and sustainable ecosystem in which natural processes proceed in an undisturbed way. In 2009 the Wadden Sea was inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage list as a natural site. There are a number of different administrative bodies at national level responsible for the Wadden Sea s protection (including National Park administrations). The Common Wadden Sea Secretariat has a coordinative function at the trilateral level on behalf of the three governments. About every four years ministerial conferences on protection of the Wadden Sea take place, while in the 23