190
uncertainties about ecosystem impacts and consequences. For example, disagreements on the technical and economic feasibility of various suggested options for
ballast water management have been common (cf. Lemke et al. 2010 ).
In their analysis of IAS management and assessment , Smolarz et al. ( 2016 )
conclude that the fundamental uncertainties outlined above are not suffi ciently
acknowledged, assessed and managed in the Baltic Sea. The authors also point to
the general need to substantially improve the knowledge base, as well as procedures
for implementing a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to IAS management. Still, despite these signifi cant challenges, it is possible to observe some initial
steps that have been taken to manage ambiguities and uncertainties linked to IAS
risks in the Baltic Sea.
First, by commonly defi ning IAS as ‘…species whose introduction and spread
threatens ecosystems, habitats or species with economic or environmental harm’,
the interpretative ambiguities seem to have been ‘defi ned away’ in what can be seen
as a pragmatic and precautionary approach (cf. Smolarz et al. 2016 ). That is, this
defi nition assumes that all IAS per defi nition could cause harm.
Second, although uncertainty in the scientifi c discourse is mainly discussed in
terms of a substantial lack of data (e.g. on monitoring of nonindigenous species in
particular environments and ecological consequences of these), the development of
regulatory frameworks focuses on preventing entry of IAS in the Baltic Sea by
requiring, for example, shipowners to manage ballast water safely. It is, however,
too early to evaluate the success of these chosen management approaches, since
safety regulations are still not fully implemented and several exemptions have been
discussed, for example, in HELCOM regarding low-risk shipping routes in the
Baltic Sea.
Finally, several scientifi c projects and risk assessments initiated by, for example,
HELCOM and EU research programmes, have addressed uncertainty by attempting
to develop strategies for screening and prioritising risks of various species, vectors,
areas and routes. HELCOM has since 2008 published a list of harmful species.
There is also a prioritised list of ‘target’ species exhibiting properties leading to
high environmental risks (e.g. HELCOM 2014 ). Such a pragmatic prioritisation
strategy clearly has the potential to focus efforts and resources on issues and areas
exhibiting high risk. However, concerns have also been raised that an overly strict
management focus on known risks may counteract precaution (Smolarz et al. 2016 ).
Hence, although uncertainties linked to IAS risks and their consequences for
management in the Baltic Sea are substantial and seldom fully acknowledged, some
rudimentary pragmatic steps for addressing uncertainty have recently been taken. It
is of course too early to tell whether or not these approaches for uncertainty
management will be suffi cient to counteract potential disputes among stakeholders
and allow for effective implementation of the global BWM Convention and the
recently adopted EU regulation on IAS in the Baltic Sea region. Ultimately, it also
remains to be seen if the primary focus on IAS risks connected with shipping is
suffi cient to reduce the overall environmental risks of introducing IAS from all
sources to levels enabling publicly decided targets.
S. Linke et al.
uncertainties about ecosystem impacts and consequences. For example, disagreements on the technical and economic feasibility of various suggested options for
ballast water management have been common (cf. Lemke et al. 2010 ).
In their analysis of IAS management and assessment , Smolarz et al. ( 2016 )
conclude that the fundamental uncertainties outlined above are not suffi ciently
acknowledged, assessed and managed in the Baltic Sea. The authors also point to
the general need to substantially improve the knowledge base, as well as procedures
for implementing a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to IAS management. Still, despite these signifi cant challenges, it is possible to observe some initial
steps that have been taken to manage ambiguities and uncertainties linked to IAS
risks in the Baltic Sea.
First, by commonly defi ning IAS as ‘…species whose introduction and spread
threatens ecosystems, habitats or species with economic or environmental harm’,
the interpretative ambiguities seem to have been ‘defi ned away’ in what can be seen
as a pragmatic and precautionary approach (cf. Smolarz et al. 2016 ). That is, this
defi nition assumes that all IAS per defi nition could cause harm.
Second, although uncertainty in the scientifi c discourse is mainly discussed in
terms of a substantial lack of data (e.g. on monitoring of nonindigenous species in
particular environments and ecological consequences of these), the development of
regulatory frameworks focuses on preventing entry of IAS in the Baltic Sea by
requiring, for example, shipowners to manage ballast water safely. It is, however,
too early to evaluate the success of these chosen management approaches, since
safety regulations are still not fully implemented and several exemptions have been
discussed, for example, in HELCOM regarding low-risk shipping routes in the
Baltic Sea.
Finally, several scientifi c projects and risk assessments initiated by, for example,
HELCOM and EU research programmes, have addressed uncertainty by attempting
to develop strategies for screening and prioritising risks of various species, vectors,
areas and routes. HELCOM has since 2008 published a list of harmful species.
There is also a prioritised list of ‘target’ species exhibiting properties leading to
high environmental risks (e.g. HELCOM 2014 ). Such a pragmatic prioritisation
strategy clearly has the potential to focus efforts and resources on issues and areas
exhibiting high risk. However, concerns have also been raised that an overly strict
management focus on known risks may counteract precaution (Smolarz et al. 2016 ).
Hence, although uncertainties linked to IAS risks and their consequences for
management in the Baltic Sea are substantial and seldom fully acknowledged, some
rudimentary pragmatic steps for addressing uncertainty have recently been taken. It
is of course too early to tell whether or not these approaches for uncertainty
management will be suffi cient to counteract potential disputes among stakeholders
and allow for effective implementation of the global BWM Convention and the
recently adopted EU regulation on IAS in the Baltic Sea region. Ultimately, it also
remains to be seen if the primary focus on IAS risks connected with shipping is
suffi cient to reduce the overall environmental risks of introducing IAS from all
sources to levels enabling publicly decided targets.
S. Linke et al.