OSPAR is the intergovernmental body through which fifteen governments and the European Union cooperate to protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. It is a long-established organisation with a wide remit, covering biodiversity, hazardous substances, eutrophication, offshore industry, radioactive substances and environmental assessment. Like many intergovernmental bodies, its structures have grown over time. The Governance Group commissioned an independent review to look at how well those structures support OSPAR's work now, and where they could work better.

Building the evidence

The review combined several strands of evidence to get a rounded picture of how OSPAR works in practice:

• an online survey that received 86 responses from four stakeholder groups;
• structured discussions with OSPAR's five thematic committees;
• 15 in-depth interviews with key informants; and
• a validation workshop with the OSPAR Secretariat.

We analysed this material thematically. The analysis looked at the governance bodies themselves and also at how they work: decision-making, prioritisation, resources, transparency, information flow and coordination between committees. The result was a findings report setting out what is working well, where pressures lie, and why.

From findings to options

We then developed an options report. It sets out 39 options for change across 13 governance issues. Each option was assessed for its likely benefit and ease of implementation, along with its strengths, risks and consequences.

Governance changes rarely stand alone. One reform can depend on another, reinforce it, or pull against it. To make these links visible, we mapped the relationships between every pair of options in an interdependency matrix. That mapping let us group the options into six clusters, covering governance architecture; prioritisation and resources; observer engagement and transparency; induction, chair culture and institutional memory; monitoring, evaluation and learning; and decision-making practice and meeting design.

Testing the clusters together

On 1 and 2 October we brought together representatives of Contracting Parties, committee chairs and observers to test this thinking. Working groups, participants took each cluster in turn. They looked at whether the options were coherent and feasible, whether anything was missing, whether the relationships we had identified held true, and which clusters offered the most promising routes to change. 

The discussions were constructive and candid. They confirmed where there is broad agreement, identified points that need further development, and pinpointed where decisions will need to be taken in sequence rather than all at once. Participants' practical experience of how OSPAR works day to day was invaluable in grounding the options.

What happens next

We are now finalising the workshop report for the Governance Group to decide how to take this work forward. 

We are grateful to the Governance Group, the OSPAR Secretariat and everyone who gave their time to the survey, interviews, committee discussions and workshop. Reviews like this depend on people being willing to reflect openly on how their own organisation works, and the level of engagement throughout has been excellent.

If you would like to talk to us about governance reviews or institutional design for environmental and marine organisations, please get in touch.