155
have created a very different governance setup in the Baltic Sea region. The impact
of this governance setup, however, has so far only been rudimentarily researched.
Third, the scope of what constitute environmental concerns has been broadened
over the last few decades (Kern 2011 ). At fi rst, they were narrowly perceived as
management problems that in most cases could be dealt with by experts and through
various technical solutions. Now what is asked for, not the least in several EU directives and policies, are multidimensional analyses, stakeholder involvement and
system-wide management approaches. Stakeholder participation is typically
emphasised not only as important in relation to public legitimacy from a normative
standpoint but also as a means to bring in more knowledge to policy-making and
make implementation more effective (Dreyer et al. 2011 ; Stirling 2009 ). Several
EU directives have in this regard become increasingly important in the over-all
governance of the Baltic Sea. A clear trend is that these directives are now more
oriented towards holistic approaches to regulation and management. The Urban
Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) and the Nitrates Directive (91/676/
EEC) were both decided upon before the EU was enlarged in 1995. This meant that
neither Sweden and Finland nor the Baltic states and Poland shaped the directives
but nonetheless had to more or less adapt them when becoming members. The
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) has had profound infl uence on, for
instance, new forms of collaboration, since it calls for river basin management
domestically and regionally and includes key stakeholders in decision-making processes. REACH, the EU regulation on chemicals (EC/1907/2006), does not directly
target pollution of the seas and has many gaps (numerous chemicals are unregulated). It is, however, of signifi cant importance in relation to the impact of various
chemicals on marine ecological systems as it requires producers and users to
improve registration, evaluation and information provision regarding substances
and preparations of high concern. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(2008/56/EC), fi nally, is the most recent directive on marine environments.
Although it is yet too early to tell what impact it eventually will have, as with the
other recent directives, its major ambition is to achieve Good Environmental Status
by 2020 in all EU marine waters. Compared to earlier attempts to protect marine
environments, the MSFD comprises a more holistic approach with an emphasis on
adaptive management and participatory deliberation and centre-state biodiversity
conservation (Dreyer et al. 2014 ). A similar trend towards holistic and inclusive
approaches in general and the Ecosystem Approach to Management in particular is
apparent for regional strategies and action plans. For example, in the 2007 HELCOM
Baltic Sea Action Plan ( BSAP ), references to the ecosystem approach, integrated
management and stakeholder participation are made as well to the need to better
understand interactions between social and ecological systems. All member countries are required to submit national implementation plans for BSAP, covering all
major areas related to marine governance of the Baltic Sea, including land-based
pollution sources. However, to what extent BSAP will be able to profoundly infl uence management practice down to the local level and within implementing
authorities is too early to tell. So far, implementation in Sweden has largely been
traditional in the sense of not including elaborate strategies on how to improve
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…
have created a very different governance setup in the Baltic Sea region. The impact
of this governance setup, however, has so far only been rudimentarily researched.
Third, the scope of what constitute environmental concerns has been broadened
over the last few decades (Kern 2011 ). At fi rst, they were narrowly perceived as
management problems that in most cases could be dealt with by experts and through
various technical solutions. Now what is asked for, not the least in several EU directives and policies, are multidimensional analyses, stakeholder involvement and
system-wide management approaches. Stakeholder participation is typically
emphasised not only as important in relation to public legitimacy from a normative
standpoint but also as a means to bring in more knowledge to policy-making and
make implementation more effective (Dreyer et al. 2011 ; Stirling 2009 ). Several
EU directives have in this regard become increasingly important in the over-all
governance of the Baltic Sea. A clear trend is that these directives are now more
oriented towards holistic approaches to regulation and management. The Urban
Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) and the Nitrates Directive (91/676/
EEC) were both decided upon before the EU was enlarged in 1995. This meant that
neither Sweden and Finland nor the Baltic states and Poland shaped the directives
but nonetheless had to more or less adapt them when becoming members. The
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) has had profound infl uence on, for
instance, new forms of collaboration, since it calls for river basin management
domestically and regionally and includes key stakeholders in decision-making processes. REACH, the EU regulation on chemicals (EC/1907/2006), does not directly
target pollution of the seas and has many gaps (numerous chemicals are unregulated). It is, however, of signifi cant importance in relation to the impact of various
chemicals on marine ecological systems as it requires producers and users to
improve registration, evaluation and information provision regarding substances
and preparations of high concern. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(2008/56/EC), fi nally, is the most recent directive on marine environments.
Although it is yet too early to tell what impact it eventually will have, as with the
other recent directives, its major ambition is to achieve Good Environmental Status
by 2020 in all EU marine waters. Compared to earlier attempts to protect marine
environments, the MSFD comprises a more holistic approach with an emphasis on
adaptive management and participatory deliberation and centre-state biodiversity
conservation (Dreyer et al. 2014 ). A similar trend towards holistic and inclusive
approaches in general and the Ecosystem Approach to Management in particular is
apparent for regional strategies and action plans. For example, in the 2007 HELCOM
Baltic Sea Action Plan ( BSAP ), references to the ecosystem approach, integrated
management and stakeholder participation are made as well to the need to better
understand interactions between social and ecological systems. All member countries are required to submit national implementation plans for BSAP, covering all
major areas related to marine governance of the Baltic Sea, including land-based
pollution sources. However, to what extent BSAP will be able to profoundly infl uence management practice down to the local level and within implementing
authorities is too early to tell. So far, implementation in Sweden has largely been
traditional in the sense of not including elaborate strategies on how to improve
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…