Governance of seabed integrity in the Baltic Sea

Seabed integrity depends on the health and wellbeing of benthic habitats found on the seafloor. These habitats include geological and biological components that are constantly pressured by human activities e.g. dredging, bottom trawling.

PERMAGOV analysis of governance arrangements shows that the availability of knowledge is an essential enabler for seabed governance. Missing knowledge about the locations and extent of benthic habitat types, impacts of bottom trawling, cumulative impacts of activities, and the recovery potential of habitats hamper seabed governance.

Setting threshold values can support seabed governance by providing concrete quantified targets for seabed protection and legal depth for the enforcement of the MSFD.

1. Riku Varjopuro, Syke seabed integrity in the Baltic Sea February 2025

2. Seabed integrity – cross- sector challenge

3. Governance setting

4. Linkages between model components Weak enforceability and complexity of the MSFD MSFD demonstrates weak formality of institutions which does not make the member states fully accountable for implementation. Recently introduced threshold values for seabed integrity define the ecological scale as the unit to address in management, which links the scale of institutions to rescaling. Introduction of the threshold values suggests that governance is capable of revitalisation (governance capability) by introducing interventions. Complexity and weak enforceability of the MSFD reduces interest of industries to participate. Issues related to formality of institutions result as issues in principled engagement. Note: Weak enforceability of MSFD is especially and issue within the institutional attributes

5. Linkages between model components Regionalisation of CFP through BSAC and BALTFISH Rescaling (governance capability) showing how the challenges in the scale of institutions (institutional attribute) have been addressed. This has increased principled engagement (collaboration dynamics). There is, however, a difference in the way BSAC and BALTFISH are valued by fisheries stakeholders. ?

6. Linkages between model components A need to develop means and technologies to share data between the Baltic Sea countries about benthic habitats and human activities affecting them was brought out in several interviews. Institutional attribute: development and use of knowledge E-governance: seeing and knowing This would increase capacity for joint action (collaboration dynamics). Creates a possibility for rescaling (governance capability) as it would improve the Baltic Sea countries’ possibilities for coordinated governance.

7. Initial observations about governance capability Weak enforceability of the MSFD and HELCOM decisions Limits the capability for revitalization . However , both governance bodies have shown ability to introduce new measures showing agility . Monitoring , state assessment and scheduled revision are integral for both MSFD and HELCOM’s BSAP Built in prerequisite for reflexivity providing for agility Slow cycles , but also learning by doing to improve monitoring and assessments Lack of social and economic monitoring limits the scope of reflexivity The MSFD threshold values introduce new ecological scales and HELCOM’s common approach to seabed management both show elements of rescaling . HELCOM system shows responsiveness to intiatives coming from contracting parties and acknowledged observers MSFD decision-making has some responsiveness , but all stakeholders are not active ( even though the Commission would like them to be ) Initiatives from expert groups are well received , but sometimes also rejected by the Member States (e.g. 10% target to protect the seabed habitats )

8. VISION