196
confl icts impacting on current science-policy interactions). However, in the eutrophication case, stakeholder groups are not yet organised to a similar extent as in
fi sheries management, and this case does not experience protests and debate to a
similar degree as the (much older) governance domain of fi sheries. In the chemicals
case, where confl icts are dispersed among a variety of stakeholders, we fi nd some
approaches for applying precaution to handle the paramount uncertainties and
ambiguities. With environmental governance linked to oil transportation, we see a
case of technical risk management focusing on safety regulations and reducing
human errors, including surveillance and monitoring , without any stakeholder confl icts between dominant actors. IAS governance was, contrary to most of the other
cases, identifi ed as an area of low public interest and minor stakeholder confl icts.
An interesting observation is that EAM was commonly invoked by stakeholders in
the IAS case (albeit often with diverging defi nitions and framings ) as an appropriate
basis for developing assessments as well as management measures. Such an interest
in EAM was apparent in many of the other cases as well. However, while attempts
to develop EAM are perhaps most visible in the environment-oriented policies of
the chemicals case and in the struggle to cope with interactions between eutrophication on the one hand and fi sheries and chemicals on the other, practical conclusions
on how to effectively address and integrate EAM in concrete assessmentmanagement interactions (science-policy interfaces) are still largely missing.
Juxtaposing our results to the model of incomplete states of knowledge in the
‘uncertainty matrix’ presented above and proposed methodological responses (Sect.
8.2 ), we cannot yet fi nd a variety of alternative approaches that according to Stirling
are required when the traditional risk assessment -management approach is inappropriate. Nevertheless, the comparative analysis of our fi ve marine governance
cases highlights different stages in the adaptation of such methodological responses
to uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance that may have the potential to ‘reveal the
intrinsically normative and contestable basis for decisions, and the different ways in
which our knowledge is incomplete’ (Stirling 2007 : 312). Such more refl ective
perspectives on the role of science and/versus policy- and decision-making are
important for developments to incorporate all three pillars of EAM – ecological,
social and economic sustainability – in the respective management systems.
To summarise, our study shows that assessment -management interactions in
general have neither developed in line with theoretical assumptions nor in an always
purposeful manner. However, a continuation of the tendencies, trends or advancements discussed here can lead to increasingly coordinated and more effective risk
governance policies in all fi ve cases. In addition, the ongoing Europeanisation of
marine environmental governance in the Baltic Sea illustrated in other studies (cf.
Gilek et al. 2015 ) could potentially lead to a diminished role for HELCOM, owing
to the EU membership of most countries around the Baltic Sea and stronger legislative
powers of the EU. This will potentially complement and strengthen the mentioned
trends. At the same time, the ongoing regionalisation of environmental governance
of the Baltic Sea, as seen, for example, in the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region
or with BS RAC under CFP and more recently also the member states’ forum BALTFISH
S. Linke et al.
confl icts impacting on current science-policy interactions). However, in the eutrophication case, stakeholder groups are not yet organised to a similar extent as in
fi sheries management, and this case does not experience protests and debate to a
similar degree as the (much older) governance domain of fi sheries. In the chemicals
case, where confl icts are dispersed among a variety of stakeholders, we fi nd some
approaches for applying precaution to handle the paramount uncertainties and
ambiguities. With environmental governance linked to oil transportation, we see a
case of technical risk management focusing on safety regulations and reducing
human errors, including surveillance and monitoring , without any stakeholder confl icts between dominant actors. IAS governance was, contrary to most of the other
cases, identifi ed as an area of low public interest and minor stakeholder confl icts.
An interesting observation is that EAM was commonly invoked by stakeholders in
the IAS case (albeit often with diverging defi nitions and framings ) as an appropriate
basis for developing assessments as well as management measures. Such an interest
in EAM was apparent in many of the other cases as well. However, while attempts
to develop EAM are perhaps most visible in the environment-oriented policies of
the chemicals case and in the struggle to cope with interactions between eutrophication on the one hand and fi sheries and chemicals on the other, practical conclusions
on how to effectively address and integrate EAM in concrete assessmentmanagement interactions (science-policy interfaces) are still largely missing.
Juxtaposing our results to the model of incomplete states of knowledge in the
‘uncertainty matrix’ presented above and proposed methodological responses (Sect.
8.2 ), we cannot yet fi nd a variety of alternative approaches that according to Stirling
are required when the traditional risk assessment -management approach is inappropriate. Nevertheless, the comparative analysis of our fi ve marine governance
cases highlights different stages in the adaptation of such methodological responses
to uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance that may have the potential to ‘reveal the
intrinsically normative and contestable basis for decisions, and the different ways in
which our knowledge is incomplete’ (Stirling 2007 : 312). Such more refl ective
perspectives on the role of science and/versus policy- and decision-making are
important for developments to incorporate all three pillars of EAM – ecological,
social and economic sustainability – in the respective management systems.
To summarise, our study shows that assessment -management interactions in
general have neither developed in line with theoretical assumptions nor in an always
purposeful manner. However, a continuation of the tendencies, trends or advancements discussed here can lead to increasingly coordinated and more effective risk
governance policies in all fi ve cases. In addition, the ongoing Europeanisation of
marine environmental governance in the Baltic Sea illustrated in other studies (cf.
Gilek et al. 2015 ) could potentially lead to a diminished role for HELCOM, owing
to the EU membership of most countries around the Baltic Sea and stronger legislative
powers of the EU. This will potentially complement and strengthen the mentioned
trends. At the same time, the ongoing regionalisation of environmental governance
of the Baltic Sea, as seen, for example, in the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region
or with BS RAC under CFP and more recently also the member states’ forum BALTFISH
S. Linke et al.