176
practices need to adapt to new ways of giving, using and implementing various sorts
of advice. This shift towards EAM is furthermore in line with the EU’s general
principles of ‘good governance’ (COM 2001 : 10) applied in various marine policies
such as the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), aiming for a ‘broad involvement of
stakeholders at all stages of the policy from conception to implementation’ (EC
2002 : 6).
Our study analyses the problems and challenges faced when a traditional conceptualisation of science-policy interfaces, such as the ‘ideal causal chain’ model, is applied
to different cases of environmental governance in the Baltic Sea and suggests ways
in which associated problems and challenges might be countered. Applying the
EAM concept, with its aspirations to achieve sustainable use of ecosystems in line
with place-based requirements and sensitivities of the socioecological system (cf.
Boström et al. 2016 ), opens new opportunities for a more holistic approach to
understand and design science-policy interfaces by taking both the natural system
(represented via science) and the social system (sociopolitical aspects) into account
(cf. Gilek et al. 2015 ). The widening perspective of EAM could hence contribute to
avoiding some of the traditional pitfalls of narrowly assigned science-based
management systems. One of these pitfalls is the strongly sector-based marine environmental governance of the Baltic Sea that is studied here.
Furthermore, all our case studies present strongly politicised domains of environmental governance (albeit with case-specifi c differences), where the boundaries
between science and policy are continuously blurred and often debated. This implies
that political and cultural values heavily infl uence scientifi c processes while science
on the other hand strongly infl uences policy developments. This phenomenon is
described as the ‘co-production of science and policy’ (Jasanoff 2004 ; Jasanoff and
Wynne 1998 ) and highlights key questions about the roles and responsibilities of
different actors such as scientists (and the science system) and other relevant stakeholders and policymakers in the interplay between assessment and management. In
this ‘co-produced’ context, new and developed institutional structures and processes
of interaction could act as ‘boundary organisations’ between science and policy that
make environmental problems governable. As Lidskog ( 2014 :3) states: ‘By negotiating and renegotiating the boundaries between science and policy, environmental
problems and their possible solutions are co-produced. Both science and policy are
mobilised in order to solve a specifi c environmental problem’.
8.2.2 Analytical Framework and Methods
EAM emphasises the importance of two major aspects of environmental governance.
It fi rst highlights a regional basis for management . Second, it emphasises appropriate processes, methods and techniques for dealing with uncertainties and
disagreements in the interaction between science and policymaking. Using an
analytical framework focussing on science-policy interactions as outlined below,
S. Linke et al.
practices need to adapt to new ways of giving, using and implementing various sorts
of advice. This shift towards EAM is furthermore in line with the EU’s general
principles of ‘good governance’ (COM 2001 : 10) applied in various marine policies
such as the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), aiming for a ‘broad involvement of
stakeholders at all stages of the policy from conception to implementation’ (EC
2002 : 6).
Our study analyses the problems and challenges faced when a traditional conceptualisation of science-policy interfaces, such as the ‘ideal causal chain’ model, is applied
to different cases of environmental governance in the Baltic Sea and suggests ways
in which associated problems and challenges might be countered. Applying the
EAM concept, with its aspirations to achieve sustainable use of ecosystems in line
with place-based requirements and sensitivities of the socioecological system (cf.
Boström et al. 2016 ), opens new opportunities for a more holistic approach to
understand and design science-policy interfaces by taking both the natural system
(represented via science) and the social system (sociopolitical aspects) into account
(cf. Gilek et al. 2015 ). The widening perspective of EAM could hence contribute to
avoiding some of the traditional pitfalls of narrowly assigned science-based
management systems. One of these pitfalls is the strongly sector-based marine environmental governance of the Baltic Sea that is studied here.
Furthermore, all our case studies present strongly politicised domains of environmental governance (albeit with case-specifi c differences), where the boundaries
between science and policy are continuously blurred and often debated. This implies
that political and cultural values heavily infl uence scientifi c processes while science
on the other hand strongly infl uences policy developments. This phenomenon is
described as the ‘co-production of science and policy’ (Jasanoff 2004 ; Jasanoff and
Wynne 1998 ) and highlights key questions about the roles and responsibilities of
different actors such as scientists (and the science system) and other relevant stakeholders and policymakers in the interplay between assessment and management. In
this ‘co-produced’ context, new and developed institutional structures and processes
of interaction could act as ‘boundary organisations’ between science and policy that
make environmental problems governable. As Lidskog ( 2014 :3) states: ‘By negotiating and renegotiating the boundaries between science and policy, environmental
problems and their possible solutions are co-produced. Both science and policy are
mobilised in order to solve a specifi c environmental problem’.
8.2.2 Analytical Framework and Methods
EAM emphasises the importance of two major aspects of environmental governance.
It fi rst highlights a regional basis for management . Second, it emphasises appropriate processes, methods and techniques for dealing with uncertainties and
disagreements in the interaction between science and policymaking. Using an
analytical framework focussing on science-policy interactions as outlined below,
S. Linke et al.