189
This situation, with comparably low levels of stakeholder disagreement on
eutrophication management during the fi rst part of the BSAP process leading to a
decision on country-wise nutrient reduction targets, might be due to largely underdeveloped forums for stakeholder participation and representation in eutrophicationrelated policy and management. However, affected stakeholder groups like farmers
are increasingly organising themselves to voice their opinions, concerns and recommendations on nutrient reduction strategies, at a national as well as international
level. These farmers’ (as one of the most affected economic stakeholder groups)
viewpoints involve calls for inclusion of socio-economic assessments in the implementation of the BSAP, as well as initiation of a broader dialogue with society ‘that
should be designed so that real infl uence could be exercised without having to take
part in numerous scientifi c and other meetings’ (BFFE 2013 ).
With regard to the initial assessment for the BSAP in 2007 involving the tight
and exclusive NEST-HELCOM interaction (see above and Karlsson et al. 2016 ),
Swedish farmers voiced concerns only with respect to the fact that a ‘new and previously untested model is used as the basis for a multi-million decision’ (LRF 2010 ).
Now the same stakeholder group, as well as its international counterpart, the Baltic
Farmers’ Forum on Environment (BFFE), criticises current eutrophication management strategies for implementing BSAP in a more forceful and detailed way with
respect to ( 1 ) the neglect of the internal phosphorus loads from sediments in the
Baltic Sea for BSAP, ( 2 ) unrealistic estimations of time frames for recovery (cf.
Gustafsson et al. 2012 ) and ( 3 ) cost-effi ciency issues (BFFE 2013 ; LRF 2013 ).
8.3.2.3 Invasive Alien Species
Despite the fact that maritime transportation is nowadays recognised as the main
vector of marine IAS (Leppäkoski and Laine 2009 ; Smolarz et al. 2016 ), there are
numerous uncertainties associated with the identifi cation of other potential pathways, high-risk species and, above all, long-term ecosystem impacts and associated
socio-economic consequences. Linked to this is also an interpretative ambiguity
related to assessing the consequences of IAS, since a particular introduction of, for
example, a fi sh species could be associated with both negative (e.g. on native species)
and positive effects (e.g. on commercial fi sheries). Moreover, it has been argued that
neither knowledge about probabilities nor about environmental impacts can be
made fully clear for IAS (i.e. in line with an ignorance type of risk, cf. Sect. 8.2 ),
since ecosystem outcomes of IAS will always be infl uenced by context- specifi c
factors such as type and condition of species, location and season of introduction,
etc., associated with particular species introduction (e.g. Zavaleta et al. 2001 ).
Even though IAS is characterised by high levels of scientifi c uncertainty and
interpretative ambiguity , these aspects have not provoked the same level of
disagreement and controversy in science and management as, for example, in fi sheries
(e.g. Lemke et al. 2010 ; Linke et al. 2014 ). This does not mean that there have been
no disagreements or controversies linked to regulatory developments in the IAS
case but rather that such disagreements have had causes other than scientifi c
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…
This situation, with comparably low levels of stakeholder disagreement on
eutrophication management during the fi rst part of the BSAP process leading to a
decision on country-wise nutrient reduction targets, might be due to largely underdeveloped forums for stakeholder participation and representation in eutrophicationrelated policy and management. However, affected stakeholder groups like farmers
are increasingly organising themselves to voice their opinions, concerns and recommendations on nutrient reduction strategies, at a national as well as international
level. These farmers’ (as one of the most affected economic stakeholder groups)
viewpoints involve calls for inclusion of socio-economic assessments in the implementation of the BSAP, as well as initiation of a broader dialogue with society ‘that
should be designed so that real infl uence could be exercised without having to take
part in numerous scientifi c and other meetings’ (BFFE 2013 ).
With regard to the initial assessment for the BSAP in 2007 involving the tight
and exclusive NEST-HELCOM interaction (see above and Karlsson et al. 2016 ),
Swedish farmers voiced concerns only with respect to the fact that a ‘new and previously untested model is used as the basis for a multi-million decision’ (LRF 2010 ).
Now the same stakeholder group, as well as its international counterpart, the Baltic
Farmers’ Forum on Environment (BFFE), criticises current eutrophication management strategies for implementing BSAP in a more forceful and detailed way with
respect to ( 1 ) the neglect of the internal phosphorus loads from sediments in the
Baltic Sea for BSAP, ( 2 ) unrealistic estimations of time frames for recovery (cf.
Gustafsson et al. 2012 ) and ( 3 ) cost-effi ciency issues (BFFE 2013 ; LRF 2013 ).
8.3.2.3 Invasive Alien Species
Despite the fact that maritime transportation is nowadays recognised as the main
vector of marine IAS (Leppäkoski and Laine 2009 ; Smolarz et al. 2016 ), there are
numerous uncertainties associated with the identifi cation of other potential pathways, high-risk species and, above all, long-term ecosystem impacts and associated
socio-economic consequences. Linked to this is also an interpretative ambiguity
related to assessing the consequences of IAS, since a particular introduction of, for
example, a fi sh species could be associated with both negative (e.g. on native species)
and positive effects (e.g. on commercial fi sheries). Moreover, it has been argued that
neither knowledge about probabilities nor about environmental impacts can be
made fully clear for IAS (i.e. in line with an ignorance type of risk, cf. Sect. 8.2 ),
since ecosystem outcomes of IAS will always be infl uenced by context- specifi c
factors such as type and condition of species, location and season of introduction,
etc., associated with particular species introduction (e.g. Zavaleta et al. 2001 ).
Even though IAS is characterised by high levels of scientifi c uncertainty and
interpretative ambiguity , these aspects have not provoked the same level of
disagreement and controversy in science and management as, for example, in fi sheries
(e.g. Lemke et al. 2010 ; Linke et al. 2014 ). This does not mean that there have been
no disagreements or controversies linked to regulatory developments in the IAS
case but rather that such disagreements have had causes other than scientifi c
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…