Implementation of international environmental commitments: the case of the Northern Seas

This paper sets out to discuss the “effectiveness” of two regional environmental regimes: the North Sea/North-East Atlantic and the Baltic. Effectiveness is conceived of in terms of (1) outputs: decisions flowing from the regime; (2) outcome: behavioural change resulting from the regime; and finally (3) impact: consequences of the regime for the natural environment. Outputs are fairly easy to measure, and both regimes have a rather high score on this indicator, especially in more recent years. Outcome, however, is more important if we want to know more about the tangible consequences of the regime. Nevertheless, this yardstick is more difficult to apply and knowledge is much more limited. Both regimes seem to have a lower score on this dimension, especially the Baltic regime; not least because this regime faces a more difficult problem than the North Sea regime. As to impact, which is the most important dimension, uncertainty is even higher and any ranking is premature. The main challenges in this field at present are to learn more about outcome; to focus on the causal links between the international regime level and the domestic implementation process; and to determine how much of domestic behaviour is due to the regime rather than other factors? Several major social science research projects are now underway to untangle this intricate process.