In 2008 and 2010, the European Union and the United States adopted new marine policy approaches. The main driver to reform their marine policies was the insight that AM251 the existing sector specific approaches to a large extent contributed to an inadequate management of the seas (see Crowder et?al., 2006, Rosenberg, 2009, Long, 2011, Koivurova, 2009, Borja, 2006 and Frank, 2007). The ocean governance systems on both sides of the Atlantic were characterized by fragmentation due to a conglomerate of individual regulative approaches in the marine environment (see Cruz and McLaughlin, 2008, Crowder et?al., 2006, Portman, 2011, Turnipseed et?al., 2009, Fletcher, 2007, Borja, 2006, Maier and Markus, 2013 and Long, 2011). These consisted of a multitude of different laws, regulations and competences (ibid.). What seemed to be missing was an overarching institution to manage the use and protection of the marine environment in a concerted way, overcoming the different logics and goals of the existing agencies and institutions. The result often was duplication of work, and contradicting policy outcomes. The consequences of this sometimes called “failure of governance” (Lubchenco and Sutley, 2010: 1 485; Young et al., 2007: 22; Crowder et al., 2006: 617) include declining fish stocks, transformed food webs, biodiversity loss and polluted coastlines. In contrast to the former patchwork of regulations, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the National Ocean Policy aim for a more comprehensive approach with the marine environment at the center of the policies, instead of individual sector specific goals.
↧