195
(policymaking), as a result of a historic path dependency , that in turn causes various
forms of institutional inertia (Hegland and Raakjær 2008 ; Wilson 2009 ), even
though recent developments with the RACs such as the Baltic RAC may gradually
change the picture. This path dependency and the resulting inertia of science and
policymaking can also be seen in the chemicals case, where the traditional primacy
of risk-based approaches (e.g. the ‘TDG machine’) is strong. This phenomenon cannot be observed to an equal degree either in the case of eutrophication, where the
NEST- HELCOM model offered a comparatively new approach of science-policy
interaction, or in the emerging domain of IAS, where an institutionalised form of
assessment -management interaction is not yet in place.
Furthermore, well-developed institutional structures as they presently exist for
EU fi sheries management also seem to allow for the establishment of improved
deliberative processes, which at least potentially could result in improved analysis
of the socio-economic dimensions of the respective domain of marine governance
(cf. Linke and Jentoft 2014 ; Urquhart et al. 2014 ). However, apart from an incremental ‘opening up’ of the linear science-policy structures in fi sheries, we cannot
fi nd such tendencies developed to a similar extent for eutrophication, IAS, chemicals or oil transportation. In the cases of eutrophication, IAS and chemicals, it may
also be substantially harder to identify clear groups of actors defi nable as ‘legitimate
stakeholders’ to be included in the policy system than when one particular group of
actors, for example, ‘resource users’ (fi shermen) or oil transporters (shipowners),
can be defi ned as such and often accused of causing problems e.g. by the media. A
rather clear identifi cation of legitimate stakeholders, as we see in fi sheries management, is not apparent in the cases of eutrophication (where farming only represents
one of several important nutrient sources), chemicals (with a complex web of chemical producing and using actors), IAS or oil transportation.
Regarding uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements , the observed assessment -
management interactions do not seem to adequately address the key challenges
posed by the different states of knowledge as described in Fig. 8.2 and the sociopolitical ambiguities involved. With regard to management responses dealing with
different forms of uncertainty and stakeholder conflicts, thorough analyses of
the specifi c risk characteristics are not apparent, i.e. of the social and natural
knowledge requirements or of the suitability of different management strategies
such as a traditional science-based assessment, a precautionary approach, deliberative methods for stakeholder participation or extended peer review, etc. (see Sect.
8.2 and Fig. 8.2 ). Instead, all the studied assessment-management interactions can
be classifi ed as building primarily on traditional science - based assessments , which
are then applied to policy- and decision-making (Table 8.1 ). We see, however, a
number of ongoing changes and developments in each of the cases that illustrate
adaptive responses to the key management challenges studied here.
For example, we detect advancing processes of deliberation and stakeholder
inclusion in both the science and management sector in the fi sheries case, as an
attempt to deal with the principal challenges posed by uncertainty in assessments
and management, as well as to address confl icts of interests among the key actors.
Concerning eutrophication, we can see similar challenges emerging (i.e. stakeholder
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…
(policymaking), as a result of a historic path dependency , that in turn causes various
forms of institutional inertia (Hegland and Raakjær 2008 ; Wilson 2009 ), even
though recent developments with the RACs such as the Baltic RAC may gradually
change the picture. This path dependency and the resulting inertia of science and
policymaking can also be seen in the chemicals case, where the traditional primacy
of risk-based approaches (e.g. the ‘TDG machine’) is strong. This phenomenon cannot be observed to an equal degree either in the case of eutrophication, where the
NEST- HELCOM model offered a comparatively new approach of science-policy
interaction, or in the emerging domain of IAS, where an institutionalised form of
assessment -management interaction is not yet in place.
Furthermore, well-developed institutional structures as they presently exist for
EU fi sheries management also seem to allow for the establishment of improved
deliberative processes, which at least potentially could result in improved analysis
of the socio-economic dimensions of the respective domain of marine governance
(cf. Linke and Jentoft 2014 ; Urquhart et al. 2014 ). However, apart from an incremental ‘opening up’ of the linear science-policy structures in fi sheries, we cannot
fi nd such tendencies developed to a similar extent for eutrophication, IAS, chemicals or oil transportation. In the cases of eutrophication, IAS and chemicals, it may
also be substantially harder to identify clear groups of actors defi nable as ‘legitimate
stakeholders’ to be included in the policy system than when one particular group of
actors, for example, ‘resource users’ (fi shermen) or oil transporters (shipowners),
can be defi ned as such and often accused of causing problems e.g. by the media. A
rather clear identifi cation of legitimate stakeholders, as we see in fi sheries management, is not apparent in the cases of eutrophication (where farming only represents
one of several important nutrient sources), chemicals (with a complex web of chemical producing and using actors), IAS or oil transportation.
Regarding uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements , the observed assessment -
management interactions do not seem to adequately address the key challenges
posed by the different states of knowledge as described in Fig. 8.2 and the sociopolitical ambiguities involved. With regard to management responses dealing with
different forms of uncertainty and stakeholder conflicts, thorough analyses of
the specifi c risk characteristics are not apparent, i.e. of the social and natural
knowledge requirements or of the suitability of different management strategies
such as a traditional science-based assessment, a precautionary approach, deliberative methods for stakeholder participation or extended peer review, etc. (see Sect.
8.2 and Fig. 8.2 ). Instead, all the studied assessment-management interactions can
be classifi ed as building primarily on traditional science - based assessments , which
are then applied to policy- and decision-making (Table 8.1 ). We see, however, a
number of ongoing changes and developments in each of the cases that illustrate
adaptive responses to the key management challenges studied here.
For example, we detect advancing processes of deliberation and stakeholder
inclusion in both the science and management sector in the fi sheries case, as an
attempt to deal with the principal challenges posed by uncertainty in assessments
and management, as well as to address confl icts of interests among the key actors.
Concerning eutrophication, we can see similar challenges emerging (i.e. stakeholder
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…