182
or other actors - aspects that have been more vividly discussed in the context of the
new CFP reform in 2012/13 (Hatchard and Gray 2014 ; Nielsen et al. 2015 ).
However, both the RACs’ organisational design within the current CFP structure as
well as the interactive processes occurring (e.g. in the Baltic RAC) heavily impact
on their role and function in future CFP systems. They still have to show how they
can deliver future progress and consolidate their role as responsible actors in the
transformation of fi sheries management towards new approaches of co- management
characterised by a new burden of proof regime and sharing of power and responsibility (Linke and Bruckmeier 2015 ; Linke and Jentoft 2013 , 2014 ).
8.3.1.2 Eutrophication
Eutrophication management at the regional Baltic Sea level is also highly, if not
exclusively, science based, however not via an EU centralised policy as for fi sheries
but through a more informal regional institutional arrangement. The interplay
between science and policymaking has been established via a specifi cally developed
decision-support system called ‘NEST’ with HELCOM as the responsible management agency (Wulff et al. 2007 ) and with links to various EU directives (see below).
As described in more detail by Karlsson et al. ( 2016 ) and Linke et al. ( 2014 ), scientists at the Baltic Nest Institute developed NEST as a model to provide scientifi c
recommendations for transnational eutrophication management in the Baltic Sea in
close cooperation with HELCOM (cf. Wulff et al. 2007 ), an interplay referred to as
the ‘NEST-HELCOM nexus’ (Linke et al. 2014 ). This tight science-policy interface, realised through the close interplay between the Baltic Nest Institute and
HELCOM, was inscribed in the eutrophication segment of the Baltic Sea Action
Plan ( BSAP ) (HELCOM 2007 ; Linke et al. 2014 ) and has been described as a great
success in terms of science-policy interaction because the promotion of scientifi c
research resulted in improved knowledge that was, through the decision-support
system NEST, made directly applicable to policy- and decision-making on how to
mitigate the harmful effects of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea (Johansson et al.
2007 ). As opposed to the EU fi sheries policy (CFP), EU policies applied for mitigating eutrophication (e.g. the Nitrates Directive and the MSFD Descriptor 5 on
eutrophication) rest primarily with the member states as does the implementation of
agreements and recommendations under regional sea conventions such as the
Helsinki Convention . Regarding the latter, the perceived consequences of potential
nationally initiated measures led to serious criticism, for example, from farmer
organisations (BFFE 2013 ; LRF 2013 ), which distorted the previously successful
and exclusive interplay between science and policymaking in this area. However,
within the EU arena, the MSFD is still under implementation and it remains to be
seen if policies fully based on scientifi c fi ndings will be implemented in full, in
order to promote the far from achieved targets for mitigating eutrophication
(Karlsson et al. 2016 ; HELCOM 2013 ). Similarly, the BSAP-related scientifi c
S. Linke et al.
or other actors - aspects that have been more vividly discussed in the context of the
new CFP reform in 2012/13 (Hatchard and Gray 2014 ; Nielsen et al. 2015 ).
However, both the RACs’ organisational design within the current CFP structure as
well as the interactive processes occurring (e.g. in the Baltic RAC) heavily impact
on their role and function in future CFP systems. They still have to show how they
can deliver future progress and consolidate their role as responsible actors in the
transformation of fi sheries management towards new approaches of co- management
characterised by a new burden of proof regime and sharing of power and responsibility (Linke and Bruckmeier 2015 ; Linke and Jentoft 2013 , 2014 ).
8.3.1.2 Eutrophication
Eutrophication management at the regional Baltic Sea level is also highly, if not
exclusively, science based, however not via an EU centralised policy as for fi sheries
but through a more informal regional institutional arrangement. The interplay
between science and policymaking has been established via a specifi cally developed
decision-support system called ‘NEST’ with HELCOM as the responsible management agency (Wulff et al. 2007 ) and with links to various EU directives (see below).
As described in more detail by Karlsson et al. ( 2016 ) and Linke et al. ( 2014 ), scientists at the Baltic Nest Institute developed NEST as a model to provide scientifi c
recommendations for transnational eutrophication management in the Baltic Sea in
close cooperation with HELCOM (cf. Wulff et al. 2007 ), an interplay referred to as
the ‘NEST-HELCOM nexus’ (Linke et al. 2014 ). This tight science-policy interface, realised through the close interplay between the Baltic Nest Institute and
HELCOM, was inscribed in the eutrophication segment of the Baltic Sea Action
Plan ( BSAP ) (HELCOM 2007 ; Linke et al. 2014 ) and has been described as a great
success in terms of science-policy interaction because the promotion of scientifi c
research resulted in improved knowledge that was, through the decision-support
system NEST, made directly applicable to policy- and decision-making on how to
mitigate the harmful effects of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea (Johansson et al.
2007 ). As opposed to the EU fi sheries policy (CFP), EU policies applied for mitigating eutrophication (e.g. the Nitrates Directive and the MSFD Descriptor 5 on
eutrophication) rest primarily with the member states as does the implementation of
agreements and recommendations under regional sea conventions such as the
Helsinki Convention . Regarding the latter, the perceived consequences of potential
nationally initiated measures led to serious criticism, for example, from farmer
organisations (BFFE 2013 ; LRF 2013 ), which distorted the previously successful
and exclusive interplay between science and policymaking in this area. However,
within the EU arena, the MSFD is still under implementation and it remains to be
seen if policies fully based on scientifi c fi ndings will be implemented in full, in
order to promote the far from achieved targets for mitigating eutrophication
(Karlsson et al. 2016 ; HELCOM 2013 ). Similarly, the BSAP-related scientifi c
S. Linke et al.