91
complexity should consider (1) interrelated and crosscutting environmental issues,
(2) dynamics of marine ecosystems and (3) clear goals and incentives to vigorously
put into practice a new legislation (Shine et al. 2010 ).
Adaptive management is a way to improve the management process for
IAS. Adaptive management is one of the concepts central to EAM that is also integrated in MSFD . Adaptive management recognises that long-term management
decisions based upon conceptual modelling or knowledge of only a limited part of
the system are unwise due to scientifi c uncertainty about related natural systems
(Farmer et al. 2012 ). Thus, scientifi c knowledge and understanding of the system
are necessary to reduce management uncertainties. Similarly, effective cooperation
of all key stakeholders in a marine region is crucial to facilitate desired outcomes of
adaptive management plans. Long-term goals should be revised periodically as new
scientifi c information becomes available and as social needs change (ibid.).
Developing a new European legislation on IAS not only generates problems and
challenges but also provides an excellent opportunity to bring together crosscutting
inquiries and reconsider interactions between different environmental threats.
HELCOM was therefore proposed to be the main driving force in the implementation of EAM in the Baltic Sea marine area, as well as the coordinating platform for
the Baltic Sea regional implementation of the Marine Directive in the Baltic Sea
(EC 2011 ).
In summary, we believe that despite increased activity in some IAS sectors, there
is room for more action at the governmental level as has been the case, for example,
in Australia and New Zealand. As importantly, more action is needed within nationstates and regional institutions, especially those responsible for the implementation
of all the proposed preventive measures. Despite a number of actions taken, the
impact has been limited and the spread of IAS continues to take place. To move
from conceptualising solutions to translating them into practice requires (1) defi ning proper goals and objectives concentrating on sustainability, (2) intergenerational sustainability through the harmonisation of ecosystem processes and functions
with management actions and (3) switching to adaptive management that by defi nition requires cooperation between different stakeholders. Moreover, as IAS risks
are interrelated with other environmental threats (e.g. eutrophication, overfi shing
and climate change), invasive species considerations should be integrated into other
policies. These policies should include information on the relevant linkages and
recognise the interactions and synergistic effects. The implementation of the BWM
Convention dealing with ship-mediated species introduction is an important step
forward, but it needs to enter into force. Second, the Convention is not robust
enough to cover different environmental risks. Finally, practically speaking, the
Convention is still not detailed enough to be appropriate for the Baltic Sea given its
peculiar conditions. For these reasons, an implementation strategy for each country
that has ratifi ed the BWM Convention is necessary. These strategies would have to
address issues such as (1) uncertainties linked to specifi city of the Baltic Sea
environment and ballast water removal and (2) amending the distribution of
responsibilities between ship owner and harbours (e.g. fi nancial responsibilities,
planning and building infrastructure for receiving ballast water). Additionally, there
4 Biological Invasions: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
complexity should consider (1) interrelated and crosscutting environmental issues,
(2) dynamics of marine ecosystems and (3) clear goals and incentives to vigorously
put into practice a new legislation (Shine et al. 2010 ).
Adaptive management is a way to improve the management process for
IAS. Adaptive management is one of the concepts central to EAM that is also integrated in MSFD . Adaptive management recognises that long-term management
decisions based upon conceptual modelling or knowledge of only a limited part of
the system are unwise due to scientifi c uncertainty about related natural systems
(Farmer et al. 2012 ). Thus, scientifi c knowledge and understanding of the system
are necessary to reduce management uncertainties. Similarly, effective cooperation
of all key stakeholders in a marine region is crucial to facilitate desired outcomes of
adaptive management plans. Long-term goals should be revised periodically as new
scientifi c information becomes available and as social needs change (ibid.).
Developing a new European legislation on IAS not only generates problems and
challenges but also provides an excellent opportunity to bring together crosscutting
inquiries and reconsider interactions between different environmental threats.
HELCOM was therefore proposed to be the main driving force in the implementation of EAM in the Baltic Sea marine area, as well as the coordinating platform for
the Baltic Sea regional implementation of the Marine Directive in the Baltic Sea
(EC 2011 ).
In summary, we believe that despite increased activity in some IAS sectors, there
is room for more action at the governmental level as has been the case, for example,
in Australia and New Zealand. As importantly, more action is needed within nationstates and regional institutions, especially those responsible for the implementation
of all the proposed preventive measures. Despite a number of actions taken, the
impact has been limited and the spread of IAS continues to take place. To move
from conceptualising solutions to translating them into practice requires (1) defi ning proper goals and objectives concentrating on sustainability, (2) intergenerational sustainability through the harmonisation of ecosystem processes and functions
with management actions and (3) switching to adaptive management that by defi nition requires cooperation between different stakeholders. Moreover, as IAS risks
are interrelated with other environmental threats (e.g. eutrophication, overfi shing
and climate change), invasive species considerations should be integrated into other
policies. These policies should include information on the relevant linkages and
recognise the interactions and synergistic effects. The implementation of the BWM
Convention dealing with ship-mediated species introduction is an important step
forward, but it needs to enter into force. Second, the Convention is not robust
enough to cover different environmental risks. Finally, practically speaking, the
Convention is still not detailed enough to be appropriate for the Baltic Sea given its
peculiar conditions. For these reasons, an implementation strategy for each country
that has ratifi ed the BWM Convention is necessary. These strategies would have to
address issues such as (1) uncertainties linked to specifi city of the Baltic Sea
environment and ballast water removal and (2) amending the distribution of
responsibilities between ship owner and harbours (e.g. fi nancial responsibilities,
planning and building infrastructure for receiving ballast water). Additionally, there
4 Biological Invasions: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance