The EU has taken a multi-faceted approach in addressing agricultural runoff, specifically with regards to the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. The approaches are studied in this thesis resulting in the outcome that when the deliberate regulative attempts fail, the issue in all its complexity is left for the scientists to untangle. The work abides by Martin and Craig’s epistemology of environmental law, and consists of policy analysis, doctrinal research, and jurisprudential examination. When required, the administrative-legal system of Finland is used as an example. The first three instruments examined are the Common Agricultural Policy (the erratic regulator), the Nitrates Directive (the naïve regulator) and the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (the candid regulator). The closest examination is given to the ambitious regulator who takes the demands for adaptive and integrated water management seriously and issues the Water Framework Directive, which was vested with new normative clout by the CJEU in 2015 (the Weser ruling). The suggested reading of the post-Weserian Directive distinguishes between its internal and external influence, the latter extending to all undertakings with water impacts. The assessment of forbidden derogation partly draws on meticulous scientific analysis that encompasses axiological considerations. Thus in the absence of a determinate and efficient regulator the decision-making territory is conquered by the scientists, whose considerations shirk judicial review—even in the example country where the scope of review is otherwise broad and scientific expertise readily available. The example emphasizes the significance for the legal to properly understand the manner in which scientific knowledge of the environment is produced. When it comes to the predominant paradigm of environmental studies, adaptive management, what is legally speaking normative may have already been decided upon when the legal begins to examine the ‘facts‘ and ’norms’ of the matter. The thesis analyses the relevance and consequences of adaptive management’s socio-ecological aspects from the viewpoint of the regulator / the adjudicator after which the examination continues to the legal sphere, scrutinizing the requirements the scientific reality presents for the legal. The conclusion is that rational natural resources governance only begins when administrative-legal systems are considered contingent on the scientific examination: successful regulation is to be anticipated only when the legal acknowledges the socio-ecological management of complex systems as it is and understands itself as a part of the adaptive cycles, not as a separate decision-making entity.
|Tila||Julkaistu - 20 tammikuuta 2018|
|OKM-julkaisutyyppi||G2 Pro gradu, ylempi Amk-tutkielma|