Overcoming institutional barriers in marine plastics governance: lessons from the PermaGov diagnostic tool as explored in the Baltic and Mediterranean regional seas

This presentation will showcase the findings of the PermaGov diagnostic tool for institutional barriers identification as explored through two case studies focusing on marine plastics, namely Abandoned Lost and otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG) in the Baltic Sea region and agri-plastics as a source of marine pollution in the Mar Menor (Mediterranean Sea). Institutional barriers are critical obstacles to policy implementation and are symptoms of deeper governance issues. They hinder the achievement of policy targets such as those established in the European Green Deal. Within the literature, institutional barriers are described as “impasses in governance processes that are rooted in the institutional context of the adaptation situation” (Oberlack, 2017: 807; Eisenack et al. 2014). Thus, developing options to address them requires both identifying and unpacking the root causes of these barriers within their specific institutional context. Although there is a vast literature on institutional barriers, this work often fails to connect specific barriers with the institutional design attributes that cause them. For example, path dependency may arise from the rigidity of formal institutions, or from weak institutions that enable powerful actors to prevent new management practices from being implemented. Linking institutional barriers to specific institutional design attributes is key to developing solutions to overcome them.  

The PermaGov project co-developed and tested a diagnostic tool based on a literature review and insights from end-users and selected stakeholders to identify and analyze institutional barriers and design attributes within marine governance. For the Baltic Sea case study, it was identified that: insufficient data and lacking mechanisms to share and leverage information limits stakeholder understanding of the seriousness and scope of the issue as well as impedes decision makers opportunities to design targeted action; limited institutional incentives (e.g. unclear responsibilities) are potentially hindering participation of critical actors (especially amongst State bodies) within policy implementation; and conflicting interests combined with lacking economic incentives to address ALDFG in the region are slowing opportunities for cross-policy (i.e. ministries) and cross-sectoral (i.e. industries) collaboration. Within the Mediterranean Sea case study, there remains: a lack of innovative business practices to prevent plastic waste generation in line with the Extended Producer Responsibility approach; need to increase awareness raising for all citizens as well as industry-targeted trainings to reduce plastic consumption and emission; need to establish voluntary country agreements and develop mandatory requirements with the industry to reduce plastics; need to revise the current legal framework at the national levels (e.g., National Action Plans and/or Programmes of Measures); and the need to develop a database on the production and consumption of plastic products. The results demonstrate that a number of opportunities to improve marine plastics governance exist within the two case studies and offer a starting point to develop new strategies for addressing pollution within these two regions. Findings are also relevant to consider regarding further research for both institutional barriers and marine plastics more broadly.