184
how to safely perform ballast water exchange before entering the Baltic Sea, as well
as provide guidance on how to perform risk assessments and monitoring . Various
research projects and databases have been initiated at the European and Baltic Sea
level to compile inventories of IAS, as well as identify species and shipping practices connected with particularly high levels of environmental risks (HELCOM
2014 ; Smolarz et al. 2016 ).
Hence, both management and assessment activities linked to IAS risks in the
Baltic Sea are, despite some recent progress, still in need of further development,
particularly in order to reach the ambitious objective set by HELCOM in the 2007
Baltic Sea Action Plan of no introduction of IAS from ships. For example, observations of new IAS often still build on incidental reporting, since targeted and coordinated monitoring is often lacking in high-risk areas. In a wider perspective, it has
also been argued that management and science support needs to be improved for
‘non-shipping’ sources of IAS such as aquaculture and that interdependence with
other environmental issues such as fi sheries, human-induced climate change and
eutrophication need to be considered in risk assessments (Smolarz et al. 2016 ).
Wide stakeholder involvement at the science-policy interface is lacking in the
case of IAS. For most stakeholders and the general public, this seems to be due to a
widespread lack of interest in the IAS issue and its management, which are seen as
rather uncontroversial and straightforward. In contrast, stakeholders associated with
the shipping and cargo sector have shown a strong interest in contributing knowledge and opinions as part of negotiations on development and implementation of
regulations (Lemke et al. 2010 ). Negotiations leading up to the 2004 opening of the
BWM Convention have been described by IMO as ‘complex’. The subsequent
rather long ratifi cation process seems to have been infl uenced by discussions on, for
example, technical possibilities and costs of ballast water management. It therefore
remains to be seen whether or not these sector-based discussions will improve
effi ciency and effectiveness of IAS-related management in the Baltic Sea.
8.3.1.4 Chemical Pollution
There are two central spheres for the governance of chemicals in the marine
environment within Europe of relevance for the Baltic Sea region: chemicals policy
that takes a market perspective and environmental policy that is based on, for example,
aquatic parameters which aim to protect health and the environment (Karlsson et al.
2011 ).
Within the market sphere of chemicals policy, substances have been classifi ed
and further regulated in the EU since the 1960s. Over time, a strong risk-based
foundation has emerged, implying that unacceptable risks must be proven in
comprehensive assessment before risk reduction measures could be motivated. The
ultimate manifestation of such a view is the Technical Guidance Document (TGD)
of the EU, comprising thousands of pages of instructions for scientifi c risk assessments (see, e.g., ECB 2003 ), which is applied by experts in various advisory and
S. Linke et al.
how to safely perform ballast water exchange before entering the Baltic Sea, as well
as provide guidance on how to perform risk assessments and monitoring . Various
research projects and databases have been initiated at the European and Baltic Sea
level to compile inventories of IAS, as well as identify species and shipping practices connected with particularly high levels of environmental risks (HELCOM
2014 ; Smolarz et al. 2016 ).
Hence, both management and assessment activities linked to IAS risks in the
Baltic Sea are, despite some recent progress, still in need of further development,
particularly in order to reach the ambitious objective set by HELCOM in the 2007
Baltic Sea Action Plan of no introduction of IAS from ships. For example, observations of new IAS often still build on incidental reporting, since targeted and coordinated monitoring is often lacking in high-risk areas. In a wider perspective, it has
also been argued that management and science support needs to be improved for
‘non-shipping’ sources of IAS such as aquaculture and that interdependence with
other environmental issues such as fi sheries, human-induced climate change and
eutrophication need to be considered in risk assessments (Smolarz et al. 2016 ).
Wide stakeholder involvement at the science-policy interface is lacking in the
case of IAS. For most stakeholders and the general public, this seems to be due to a
widespread lack of interest in the IAS issue and its management, which are seen as
rather uncontroversial and straightforward. In contrast, stakeholders associated with
the shipping and cargo sector have shown a strong interest in contributing knowledge and opinions as part of negotiations on development and implementation of
regulations (Lemke et al. 2010 ). Negotiations leading up to the 2004 opening of the
BWM Convention have been described by IMO as ‘complex’. The subsequent
rather long ratifi cation process seems to have been infl uenced by discussions on, for
example, technical possibilities and costs of ballast water management. It therefore
remains to be seen whether or not these sector-based discussions will improve
effi ciency and effectiveness of IAS-related management in the Baltic Sea.
8.3.1.4 Chemical Pollution
There are two central spheres for the governance of chemicals in the marine
environment within Europe of relevance for the Baltic Sea region: chemicals policy
that takes a market perspective and environmental policy that is based on, for example,
aquatic parameters which aim to protect health and the environment (Karlsson et al.
2011 ).
Within the market sphere of chemicals policy, substances have been classifi ed
and further regulated in the EU since the 1960s. Over time, a strong risk-based
foundation has emerged, implying that unacceptable risks must be proven in
comprehensive assessment before risk reduction measures could be motivated. The
ultimate manifestation of such a view is the Technical Guidance Document (TGD)
of the EU, comprising thousands of pages of instructions for scientifi c risk assessments (see, e.g., ECB 2003 ), which is applied by experts in various advisory and
S. Linke et al.