Why is governance in the Baltic Sea so difficult?

A familiar problem – in a very crowded sea

The Baltic Sea is one of the most intensively governed marine regions in the world — and one of the most intensely affected by human pressures. This paradox lies at the heart of today’s Baltic Sea governance challenge.

Despite decades of environmental cooperation, policy reforms and regional strategies, many of the most serious pressures on the sea — eutrophication, biodiversity loss, chemical pollution and increasing competition for marine space — remain largely unresolved. At the same time, new uses of the sea, such as offshore renewable energy, are accelerating.

As a result, the Baltic Sea is not only experiencing rapid environmental change. It is also undergoing profound governance change. New planning instruments, new coordination processes and new political priorities are reshaping how decisions about the sea are made.

Who governs the Baltic Sea?

The short answer: many different actors, at different governance levels, and for different purposes.

At the regional level, environmental cooperation in the Baltic Sea is coordinated through the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM). HELCOM brings together all coastal countries to agree on environmental goals, share information and coordinate action.

At the European level, a large part of Baltic Sea governance is shaped by the European Union. EU directives and policies influence how fisheries are managed, how environmental protection is implemented, and how marine space is planned and used. 8 of the 9 countries surrounding the Baltic Sea are part of the EU. Therefore, EU directives have major influences on regional and national policy-making related to the Baltic Sea.

At the same time, most concrete decisions that affect the sea are still taken nationally. National governments decide on measures and strategies for reaching “good environmental status” which can differ across countries.

Local municipalities or ministries decide on permits, spatial plans, zoning for infrastructure projects, conservation measures and enforcement. These decisions are usually organised by sector, e.g. environment, energy, transport, fisheries or agriculture, rather than by the entire marine ecosystem.

Governance is spread across several layers and many institutions. Each of them has a legitimate mandate. But together, they form a complex and often fragmented system.

Understanding this fragmented governance landscape is essential for understanding why solving environmental problems in the Baltic Sea is so challenging in practice.

The real problem is not missing rules – it is fragmentation

The Baltic Sea is not short of policies, strategies or action plans. In fact, the governance framework around the sea has expanded steadily over the past decades.

The more fundamental problem is fragmentation.

In principle, Baltic Sea governance is already guided by an ecosystem-based approach to management. This means that human activities should be planned and regulated in a way that maintains the structure, functioning and resilience of the marine ecosystem as a whole, rather than addressing individual pressures or sectors in isolation.

In the Baltic Sea, this idea is formally embedded both in regional environmental cooperation under HELCOM and in marine policy under the EU.

In practice, however, the ecosystem-based approach remains difficult to operationalise, because planning and decision-making continue to be organised along sectoral and administrative boundaries.

Different activities in the sea are governed separately, even though they affect the same ecosystem. Environmental protection, fisheries management, offshore energy development, maritime transport and coastal infrastructure are regulated through different policy frameworks and administrative structures.

In practice, this means that decisions about the sea are often made in parallel rather than together.

Offshore wind development, for example, may be planned primarily through energy and spatial planning processes, while biodiversity protection is addressed through separate environmental instruments.

From a governance perspective, this creates a coordination problem. As a result, even well-designed policies can undermine one another in practice.

Environmental targets may be weakened by development priorities. Sectoral strategies may be implemented without sufficient awareness of their combined impacts on marine ecosystems. Then, climate change may have profound and uncertain impacts that governance systems lack capability to adapt to potential changes.

In short, the main governance challenge in the Baltic Sea is not a lack of rules – it is how existing rules interact.

Why is coordination so difficult in practice?

If fragmentation is such a widely recognised problem, why is it so difficult to overcome?

One important reason lies in the diversity of policy goals.

Authorities responsible for economic development, energy security, food production, transport and environmental protection operate under different political mandates. Even when they share an overall commitment to sustainability, they are accountable for different outcomes.

A second challenge relates to time horizons.

Large infrastructure projects and major investments are often planned within relatively short political and financial cycles. Environmental recovery, by contrast, typically requires long-term and sustained action. This creates tensions between short-term decision-making and long-term ecosystem recovery objectives.

A third concerns the distribution of authority. Regional cooperation bodies play a crucial role in setting shared goals and promoting coordinated action. However, they generally have limited formal power. Binding regulatory decisions and enforcement remain largely within national and regional (EU) systems.

This creates a situation in which coordination is strongly encouraged – but weakly institutionalised.

Even when agreement exists at the regional level, translating shared objectives into coherent national and sectoral implementation remains a major challenge.

What would better Baltic Sea governance actually look like?

Calls for better governance often remain vague. Yet meaningful improvements do not necessarily require major institutional reform. They require changes in how existing institutions interact.

A first and critical step would be stronger cross-sector coordination at national level. Environmental authorities, energy ministries, maritime activities and fisheries administrations need systematic mechanisms to jointly address trade-offs and cumulative impacts – not only during formal consultation stages, but at the earliest phases of planning and policy design.

Second, better alignment between regional cooperation and national implementation is essential. Regional environmental objectives only become effective when they are clearly reflected in national policy priorities, regulatory frameworks and investment decisions.

Third, scientific and local knowledge should play a more strategic role in governance processes. This means not only informing environmental assessments, but also shaping how policy problems are framed and which trade-offs are considered acceptable.

Finally, stakeholder involvement needs to move beyond procedural consultation. Earlier and more meaningful engagement can help identify conflicts between uses of marine space, and solutions for overcoming tension.

Better governance, in this sense, is not primarily about creating new institutions. It is about strengthening the connections between those that already exist.

Why this matters now more than ever

The urgency of improving Baltic Sea governance is growing.

Offshore renewable energy development is accelerating. Competition for marine space is intensifying. Climate adaptation and coastal protection are becoming increasingly prominent policy priorities. At the same time, expectations surrounding sustainable blue economy development continue to expand.

These developments increase both the complexity and the stakes of marine governance.

Without more effective coordination across sectors and levels of authority, decision-making risks becoming increasingly fragmented at precisely the moment when more integrated approaches are needed.

In summary, without better governance arrangements, even well-designed environmental targets are unlikely to be achieved.