Exploring how transnational environmental governance and the operation of global value chains (GVCs) intersect is key in explaining the circumstances under which mandatory disclosure can improve the environmental footprint of business operations. We investigate how the governance dynamics of the tanker shipping value chain (a major emitter of greenhouse gases) limits the effectiveness of the European Union (EU) monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) regulation, which mandates the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions for ships calling at EU ports. Although MRV seeks to help shipowners and ship managers save fuel and reduce emissions, it does not address the complexity of power relations along the tanker shipping value chain and currently cannot disentangle how different actors influence the design, operational, commercial, and ocean/weather factors that together determine fuel consumption. In particular, the EU MRV neglects to reflect on how oil majors exert their power and impose their commercial priorities on other actors, and thus co-determine fuel use levels. We conclude that, in its current form, the EU MRV is unlikely to lead to significant environmental upgrading in tanker shipping. More generally, we argue that regulators seeking to facilitate environmental upgrading need to expand their focus beyond the unwanted behaviors of producers of goods and providers of services to also address the incentive structures and demands placed on them by global buyers.
The selection of alternative energy sources for shipping can effectively mitigate the problems of high energy consumption and severe environmental problems caused by shipping. However, it is usually difficult for decision makers to select the most sustainable alternative energy source for shipping among multiple alternatives due to the complexity of considering different aspects of performances and the lack of information. This study developed a novel multi-criteria decision-making method that combines Dempster-Shafer theory and a trapezoidal fuzzy analytic hierarchy process for alternative energy source selection under incomplete information conditions. According to the developed method, nuclear power has been recognized as the most sustainable alternative energy source for shipping, followed by liquefied natural gas (LNG) and wind power, and sensitivity analysis reveals that the weights of the criteria have significant on the sustainability sequence of the three alternative energy sources for shipping. The developed method can be popularized for selecting the most sustainable alternative energy source despite incomplete information.
This article investigates recent reforms of the Greenland coastal fisheries in order to contribute to the general lessons on reform and policy networks in the context of a changing Arctic stakeholdership. It analyzes participation in fisheries governance decision-making by examining the emergence of discourses and policy networks that come to define the very need for reform. A policy network is identified across state ministries, powerful officials, banks and large scale industry that defined the need for fisheries reform within a 'grand reform' discourse. But inertia characterized the actual decision-making process as reform according to this 'grand reform' discourse was blocked by a combination of small-scale fishermen' informal networks and the power of the parliamentary majority. After a parliamentary shift in power the new government implemented the 'grand reform' gradually whilst new patterns of participation and exclusion emerged. In this process, the identities of the participating participants were reinterpreted to fit the new patterns of influence and participation. The article argues that fishery reform does not necessarily start with the collective recognition of a problem in marine resource use and a power-neutral process of institutional learning. Instead, it argues that fishery reform is likely to be the 'reform of somebody' and that this 'somebody' is itself a changing identity.
Reduction of carbon emissions is a societal challenge that demands concerted efforts. The maritime industry is no exception. This paper takes an ecosystem perspective and considers the question of how to enact the green transition of the maritime industry and explore the barriers and enablers of that goal. To this end, we conduct an exploratory case-study to investigate the maritime value chain by focusing on 9 major stakeholders and conducting more than 20 interviews. Our study reveals four continuous enablers and two essential enablers to establishing a functional green maritime ecosystem.
Climate change is affecting the oceans with increased sea levels, ocean acidification and extreme weather affecting coastal ecosystems. This necessitates a new model for climate and marine law, because existing law and policy are insufficient to tackle adaptation and mitigation impacts upon the marine environment. Presently, we do not know what it takes to integrate and balance climate legislation and governance when faced with unknown problems. The concept of Blue Economy is new and originates from the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. This chapter explores how one can best build new knowledge that can integrate climate law and marine governance. It does so by proposing the creation of a nexus between ecosystem-based regulations and marine spatial planning in order to create a new paradigm for effective and inclusive Blue Economy, using a systemic multi-regulatory framework (Global, Regional and National).
In January 2023 the International Seabed Authority (ISA), an intergovernmental organization established under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) granted already thirty contracts for exploration of Deep Seabed Mining, but exploitation has not started yet because ISA has not finalized its regulations, expected in 2025. This article intends to address to what extent is the current deep Seabed mining regime factoring risks and uncertainties in a just and sustainable manner in the current legal framework on environmental liability embedded in the green energy transition's processes with the EU as case study and inquiry if there are baseline or best practice to learn from. It unravels which type of precautionary approach fits and is just. Deep Seabed Mining is also a social justice, ethical dilemma demanding equitable and shared solutions to the benefit of current and future generations because activities of this kind can destroy ecosystems that can take decades to regenerate, if not causing irreversible damage. Law and technology, but also technology will be crucial as new methods guaranteeing an "environmentally benign Deep Seabed Mining" will determine how liability law will be shaped.
This article explores how adopting a combined ecosystem and justice approach to deep-sea mining (DSM)-particularly in vulnerable regions like the Arctic-would constitute a paradigm shift in ocean environmental law and governance. Such a shift would move ocean governance beyond fragmented, technocratic, and resource-driven frameworks toward an integrated, equitable, and sustainability-centered regime grounded in ecological integrity, social justice, and respect for human rights and local traditions.
A number of solutions, with varying efficiency, have been proposed to mitigate discards. In this paper twelve mitigation measures were reviewed by their strengths and weaknesses, along with opportunities and threats, they might entail. How mitigation methods could either support or counteract others was also reviewed. The analyses of the mitigation measures are based on expert knowledge and experience and supported with existing literature. Discarding is highly variable and is influenced by numerous biological, technical and operational factors as well as social and economic drivers. These influences need to be carefully considered when designing management approaches. Finally, all reforms must be carefully considered within the context of a broader management system. The full management system needs to be thought of coherently to create an incentive framework that motivates fishers to avoid unwanted catches. It is only in this setting that discard mitigation methods may be potentially effective.
There is an increasing pressure on the fisheries to avoid bycatch and discards. In the EU this is seen in landing obligations in the new Common Fisheries Policy. The European fisheries are thus under pressure to be highly selective both in adjusting catches to the individual or collective quota combinations and to be size selective in order to optimize the economic outcome of the available quota. This paper proposes a strategy of time-place selectivity by sharing real-time data and information between vessels about areas with high abundance of unwanted species and sizes (hotspots). The paper examines use of time-place regulation, risks/benefits of sharing knowledge and experiences from a previous real-time information sharing system as a basis for developing the four models for fisher's sharing of information. The models differ with respect to data and information collection methods, who owns and accesses the data and hotspot warnings. The models are tested through a discussion of the possible application of the models in the context of the nephrops trawl fishery in Kattegat and Skagerrak. Based on this the models are proposed as possible tools for the fishing industry and managers when adjusted to specific local conditions, and a recommendation for policy support of development of information sharing systems is outlined.
Rigid fisheries management frameworks often leave fishermen with limited possibilities and incentives to adjust the selectivity of their gears to the specific fishing conditions. Implementation of the landing obligation in European fisheries emphasizes fishermen's need for flexibility in which gear to use to be able to match the selectivity of the gear to the quota available. How fishermen can play an important role in facilitating a more regionalised and flexible technical regulation by actively participating in the development of gears and contributing to the scientific documentation of their selectivity is discussed. Perspectives in the proposed technical regulation for EU fisheries and the regionalization in the 2013 Common Fisheries Policy are discussed based on an analysis of the current EU technical regulation. Then a new pathway to address the problem, currently being trialled in Danish fisheries, is discussed. Throughout the article, three themes are discussed: Identifying gear needs, development and testing of gear with fishermen as central actors; how the selectivity of the gear should be documented; and opportunities for faster evaluation of new gear, following the regionalization of the technical measure regulation. The paper concludes that a more flexible system of gear development and evaluation is possible by a) involvement of fishermen in proposing gear adjustments, self-sampling and documenting results following scientific protocols and evaluation, testing a range of designs before scientific testing, and b) open for faster approval of gear use under a regionalized technical regulation regime with annual adjustments of management plans containing the technical regulation.