88
to mental obstacles and structural challenges, underfi nancing, lack of understanding
of ecosystem complexity and dynamics, crosscutting issues and environmental
interdependencies and lack of dialogue within and between different stakeholder
groups. As a number of authors have argued, too little is being done at the governmental level in terms of justifying scientifi cally the need for regulatory measures
and/or prioritisation of management interventions and, more importantly, in national
structures and regional institutions responsible for the implementation of preventive
measures (Lemke et al. 2010 ).
The framing of EAM (with defi nitions of the concept themselves varying quite
substantially) among and within different actor groups dealing with IAS has been
polarised. Moreover, the concrete meaning of EAM remains incompletely understood and also implemented in the daily work of many stakeholders (Lemke et al.
2010 ). Only environmental organisations, scholars and other experts seem to be
familiar with the meaning of the concept, but they tend to regard EAM as another
way of describing their daily work. The EAM model was also seen to be the only
holistic way to infl uence ongoing crosscutting environmental issues. However, this
requires breaking down mental and practical barriers that are present in many sectors of the economy and administration (ibid.).
For many actors, the concept serves as a bridge between science, policy and
management and is therefore a useful tool in planning, developing and managing
activities addressing societal needs and protecting the marine environment. For
some stakeholders, it is also regarded as a ‘silver bullet’ to solve all Baltic Sea problems, which was perceived of as unrealistic by many environmental agencies. It is
also important to note that many interviewed representatives from the shipping
industry were unfamiliar with EAM and not convinced after being briefed on the
concept (Lemke et al. 2010 ). These stakeholders tend to believe that EAM represents a multi-scale and multidisciplinary challenge, if not an unachievable utopia,
and many stated it was irrelevant to what they actually do. This scepticism might be
due to the fact that the concept includes adaptive management, acknowledges gaps
in ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple external infl uences
and strives to balance diverse societal objectives, but consequently lacks clear goals
and tools to implement it in practice.
Many stakeholders feel that EAM lacks an integrated strategy that considers the
heterogeneous characteristics of marine space and resolves confl icts among consumers and the natural environment. The challenge of EAM can, however, be turned
into an opportunity to improve the foundation of EAM. For this to happen, risk
assessment and risk management will have to undergo signifi cant changes, since a
variety of institutions need to adapt to new ways of giving, using and implementing
recommendations in their daily operating and decision-making processes in accordance with EAM.
K. Smolarz et al.
to mental obstacles and structural challenges, underfi nancing, lack of understanding
of ecosystem complexity and dynamics, crosscutting issues and environmental
interdependencies and lack of dialogue within and between different stakeholder
groups. As a number of authors have argued, too little is being done at the governmental level in terms of justifying scientifi cally the need for regulatory measures
and/or prioritisation of management interventions and, more importantly, in national
structures and regional institutions responsible for the implementation of preventive
measures (Lemke et al. 2010 ).
The framing of EAM (with defi nitions of the concept themselves varying quite
substantially) among and within different actor groups dealing with IAS has been
polarised. Moreover, the concrete meaning of EAM remains incompletely understood and also implemented in the daily work of many stakeholders (Lemke et al.
2010 ). Only environmental organisations, scholars and other experts seem to be
familiar with the meaning of the concept, but they tend to regard EAM as another
way of describing their daily work. The EAM model was also seen to be the only
holistic way to infl uence ongoing crosscutting environmental issues. However, this
requires breaking down mental and practical barriers that are present in many sectors of the economy and administration (ibid.).
For many actors, the concept serves as a bridge between science, policy and
management and is therefore a useful tool in planning, developing and managing
activities addressing societal needs and protecting the marine environment. For
some stakeholders, it is also regarded as a ‘silver bullet’ to solve all Baltic Sea problems, which was perceived of as unrealistic by many environmental agencies. It is
also important to note that many interviewed representatives from the shipping
industry were unfamiliar with EAM and not convinced after being briefed on the
concept (Lemke et al. 2010 ). These stakeholders tend to believe that EAM represents a multi-scale and multidisciplinary challenge, if not an unachievable utopia,
and many stated it was irrelevant to what they actually do. This scepticism might be
due to the fact that the concept includes adaptive management, acknowledges gaps
in ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple external infl uences
and strives to balance diverse societal objectives, but consequently lacks clear goals
and tools to implement it in practice.
Many stakeholders feel that EAM lacks an integrated strategy that considers the
heterogeneous characteristics of marine space and resolves confl icts among consumers and the natural environment. The challenge of EAM can, however, be turned
into an opportunity to improve the foundation of EAM. For this to happen, risk
assessment and risk management will have to undergo signifi cant changes, since a
variety of institutions need to adapt to new ways of giving, using and implementing
recommendations in their daily operating and decision-making processes in accordance with EAM.
K. Smolarz et al.