100
1. Which measures – such as legislation, recommendations and policies – have the
EU and HELCOM taken to manage PCBs, PBDEs and PFOS/PFOA; how do
these relate to risk assessment , scientifi c uncertainty and controversies; and what
governance outcomes can be identifi ed?
2. Which governance approaches – such as risk-based polluter-oriented command
and control , or EAM , including the precautionary principle – have been applied
in each of the sub-cases?
3. What can be learnt from the past and present, and which strategies can be identifi ed for potentially improving risk governance of chemicals in the Baltic Sea
region (BSR)?
The focus on EU and HELCOM, based on the insight that these institutions are
the most important ones for the governance of chemicals in BSR (Karlsson et al.
2011 ), means that measures at national or other levels, as well as voluntary measures, will not be studied in any detail. Furthermore, the study centres on industrial
chemicals in general and not on specifi c groups of chemicals or products, such as
pharmaceuticals or toys, since the associated risks and regulations in such cases
often deserve specifi c attention. In addition, the emphasis is placed on initial
science- policy relations, and on broader policies and general legislation, rather than
on the often very detailed and diversifi ed regulations that develop once a problem
has been commonly recognised and measures have been institutionalised in society
along products’ and substances’ life cycles.
The study is primarily based on a review of documents and literature, but also on
a series of in-depth interviews with a number of stakeholders. The documents studied were peer-reviewed scientifi c publications on problems and management in the
area, so-called grey literature, such as reports and other types of publications from
non-governmental and governmental agencies and institutions working on environmental governance in BSR, and political documents. The latter consisted of laws,
policies, plans, assessments and various types of documents pertaining to strategies
and management tools, mostly at EU and international levels. Examples include:
• EU: the Water Framework Directive (EC 2000 ), the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (EC 2008a ) and the REACH regulation (EC 2006a ), together with several
technical risk assessment documents (e.g. EEC 1993 ; European Commission 1994 ).
• HELCOM: the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) (HELCOM 2007 ) under the
Helsinki Convention ( 1974 , 1992 ), several politically adopted recommendations
and technical documents and reports for monitoring and assessment.
The in-depth interviews were carried out as part of the broad RISKGOV project
and have been documented and reported elsewhere (Karlsson et al. 2011 ; Udovyk
et al. 2010 ). A total of 22 semi-structured interviews, with open-ended questions,
were conducted with scientists, politicians and journalists, as well as other actors in
HELCOM institutions and national and EU authorities. For this study, the general
results from the interviews are foremost used to structure the analysis and fi nd the
broader patterns over time in relation to the sub-cases studied.
In what follows, we present an overview of the development of governance in
BSR over time, after which the three generations of sub-cases are detailed. Each
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek
1. Which measures – such as legislation, recommendations and policies – have the
EU and HELCOM taken to manage PCBs, PBDEs and PFOS/PFOA; how do
these relate to risk assessment , scientifi c uncertainty and controversies; and what
governance outcomes can be identifi ed?
2. Which governance approaches – such as risk-based polluter-oriented command
and control , or EAM , including the precautionary principle – have been applied
in each of the sub-cases?
3. What can be learnt from the past and present, and which strategies can be identifi ed for potentially improving risk governance of chemicals in the Baltic Sea
region (BSR)?
The focus on EU and HELCOM, based on the insight that these institutions are
the most important ones for the governance of chemicals in BSR (Karlsson et al.
2011 ), means that measures at national or other levels, as well as voluntary measures, will not be studied in any detail. Furthermore, the study centres on industrial
chemicals in general and not on specifi c groups of chemicals or products, such as
pharmaceuticals or toys, since the associated risks and regulations in such cases
often deserve specifi c attention. In addition, the emphasis is placed on initial
science- policy relations, and on broader policies and general legislation, rather than
on the often very detailed and diversifi ed regulations that develop once a problem
has been commonly recognised and measures have been institutionalised in society
along products’ and substances’ life cycles.
The study is primarily based on a review of documents and literature, but also on
a series of in-depth interviews with a number of stakeholders. The documents studied were peer-reviewed scientifi c publications on problems and management in the
area, so-called grey literature, such as reports and other types of publications from
non-governmental and governmental agencies and institutions working on environmental governance in BSR, and political documents. The latter consisted of laws,
policies, plans, assessments and various types of documents pertaining to strategies
and management tools, mostly at EU and international levels. Examples include:
• EU: the Water Framework Directive (EC 2000 ), the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (EC 2008a ) and the REACH regulation (EC 2006a ), together with several
technical risk assessment documents (e.g. EEC 1993 ; European Commission 1994 ).
• HELCOM: the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) (HELCOM 2007 ) under the
Helsinki Convention ( 1974 , 1992 ), several politically adopted recommendations
and technical documents and reports for monitoring and assessment.
The in-depth interviews were carried out as part of the broad RISKGOV project
and have been documented and reported elsewhere (Karlsson et al. 2011 ; Udovyk
et al. 2010 ). A total of 22 semi-structured interviews, with open-ended questions,
were conducted with scientists, politicians and journalists, as well as other actors in
HELCOM institutions and national and EU authorities. For this study, the general
results from the interviews are foremost used to structure the analysis and fi nd the
broader patterns over time in relation to the sub-cases studied.
In what follows, we present an overview of the development of governance in
BSR over time, after which the three generations of sub-cases are detailed. Each
M. Karlsson and M. Gilek