197
(cf. Sellke et al. 2016 ), may also strengthen the role of HELCOM. HELCOM’s
BSAP is therefore seen as an instrumental way to implement, for example, the EU’s
MSFD (Gilek et al. 2015 ). If so, both the EU and HELCOM could become more
important for Baltic Sea environmental governance in the future. This might,
however, not be an identical outcome for all cases. It remains to be seen how these
diverse, but potentially mutually supportive, processes will infl uence science-policy
interfaces linked to the governance of the Baltic Sea environment. Some conclusions and recommendations from the present study are nonetheless highlighted in
the following section.
8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Our study shows the existence of similarities as well as substantial differences in
science-policy interactions among the fi ve cases. Overall the case studies illustrate
how the common ideal of natural science-based management is distorted by the
practical realities of policy- and political decision-making under conditions of ecosystem complexity , uncertainty, sociopolitical ambiguity and stakeholder disagreements . We therefore argue that it is important to consider two main aspects when
aiming to improve the ‘governability’ (Kooiman and Bavinck 2013 ) of marine
socioecological systems like the Baltic Sea. The fi rst aspect argues for a diversity of
knowledge perspectives and suggests a balance between natural science-dominated
processes and procedures and more precautionary, participatory governance
approaches that take account of social dimensions and stakeholder’s knowledge
contributions (cf. Linke and Jentoft 2014 ).
The second aspect regards maintaining a balance between the ideals of adopting
holistic governance approaches such as EAM and consideration of contextdependent requirements of specifi c societal sectors, environmental problems and
risks (e.g. linked multiple policy objectives, risk types and different states of knowledge and sociopolitical dimensions).
From our analysis, we identify fi ve key issues and challenges that, if adequately
addressed, may improve assessment -management interactions, facilitate the implementation of EAM and thus fi nally improve environmental governance:
1. The organisational structures of science-policy interfaces need to allow for
more effective, i.e. timely and context- and place-dependent, interaction between
assessment activities and management responses, while simultaneously opening
possibilities of distributing power, proof and responsibility to relevant actor
groups, all of which would be in line with EAM. This would imply a regional
and ecosystem basis of assessment-management interactions capable of addressing prioritised knowledge gaps and developing regional knowledge management
and monitoring to strengthen region-based scientifi c advice.
2. The integration of different forms and states of ( incomplete ) knowledge is currently undeveloped in assessment and advice to policy- and decision-making.
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…
(cf. Sellke et al. 2016 ), may also strengthen the role of HELCOM. HELCOM’s
BSAP is therefore seen as an instrumental way to implement, for example, the EU’s
MSFD (Gilek et al. 2015 ). If so, both the EU and HELCOM could become more
important for Baltic Sea environmental governance in the future. This might,
however, not be an identical outcome for all cases. It remains to be seen how these
diverse, but potentially mutually supportive, processes will infl uence science-policy
interfaces linked to the governance of the Baltic Sea environment. Some conclusions and recommendations from the present study are nonetheless highlighted in
the following section.
8.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Our study shows the existence of similarities as well as substantial differences in
science-policy interactions among the fi ve cases. Overall the case studies illustrate
how the common ideal of natural science-based management is distorted by the
practical realities of policy- and political decision-making under conditions of ecosystem complexity , uncertainty, sociopolitical ambiguity and stakeholder disagreements . We therefore argue that it is important to consider two main aspects when
aiming to improve the ‘governability’ (Kooiman and Bavinck 2013 ) of marine
socioecological systems like the Baltic Sea. The fi rst aspect argues for a diversity of
knowledge perspectives and suggests a balance between natural science-dominated
processes and procedures and more precautionary, participatory governance
approaches that take account of social dimensions and stakeholder’s knowledge
contributions (cf. Linke and Jentoft 2014 ).
The second aspect regards maintaining a balance between the ideals of adopting
holistic governance approaches such as EAM and consideration of contextdependent requirements of specifi c societal sectors, environmental problems and
risks (e.g. linked multiple policy objectives, risk types and different states of knowledge and sociopolitical dimensions).
From our analysis, we identify fi ve key issues and challenges that, if adequately
addressed, may improve assessment -management interactions, facilitate the implementation of EAM and thus fi nally improve environmental governance:
1. The organisational structures of science-policy interfaces need to allow for
more effective, i.e. timely and context- and place-dependent, interaction between
assessment activities and management responses, while simultaneously opening
possibilities of distributing power, proof and responsibility to relevant actor
groups, all of which would be in line with EAM. This would imply a regional
and ecosystem basis of assessment-management interactions capable of addressing prioritised knowledge gaps and developing regional knowledge management
and monitoring to strengthen region-based scientifi c advice.
2. The integration of different forms and states of ( incomplete ) knowledge is currently undeveloped in assessment and advice to policy- and decision-making.
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…