198
This reduces possibilities of addressing the social dimension of sustainable
development as well as interdependencies among environmental issues.
Knowledge inclusion is therefore a topic that could potentially help to harmonise
and democratise policy- and decision-making, as well as contribute to identifying and reducing existing blind knowledge spots.
3. Stakeholder participation and deliberation also require more careful consideration, especially in some of the cases, since the incorporation of practitioner’s
perspectives and local knowledge in assessments as well as stakeholder deliberation in management are vital for the successful implementation of EAM . How to
arrange this in an effective, meaningful and purposeful manner in each case,
however, needs to be further studied.
4. We also feel that there is substantial room for improvement with regard to coping
with scientifi c uncertainty and stakeholder disagreements in both assessment
and management. We conclude that there are examples of science-based precautionary approaches and methods but that a comprehensive and coherent strategy
for addressing uncertainty and disagreements is often lacking. Both the institutional designs of the investigated science-policy interfaces as well as the processes of stakeholder interaction need to be adapted to meet the intentions of
‘good’ environmental governance as laid down in various EU principles (e.g. in
the CFP, EC 2002 ).
5. Despite the commonly expressed idea of a clear separation between assessment
and management, the studied science-policy interactions appear often rather diffuse and politicised . This lack of transparency and refl ection about the practical
realities of science-policy interactions and how they evolve and are constructed
may mislead both political decision-makers and the public and thus potentially
hamper effective management progress. As it is unavoidable that the spheres of
science and policy are blurred, it is even more important to be transparent about
points of departures, underlying values, methodological choices and approaches
used in assessment and management related to environmental governance.
Furthermore, improved communication about the internal processes of science
and policymaking and their interlinkages (‘co-production’) is similarly important to counteract existing governance defi cits.
Acknowledgements This chapter draws on results from the research programme ‘Environmental
Risk Governance of the Baltic Sea’ (2009–2015, Michael Gilek, programme coordinator), which
involved research teams from Södertörn University in Sweden, Åbo Akademi University in
Finland, Dialogik/Stuttgart University in Germany and Gdansk University in Poland. The funding
came from the Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies and the European Community’s
Seventh Framework Programme (2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 217246 made with the
joint Baltic Sea research and development programme BONUS, as well as from the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, the Swedish Research Council FORMAS, the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher
Education and the Academy of Finland. SL also acknowledges funding from the Swedish Research
Council and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. We wish to express our warmest thanks to these institutions for enabling us to conduct this research, to all participants in the research programme that
directly or indirectly provided useful input and to all informants sharing their experiences, as well
as to two reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of the chapter.
S. Linke et al.
This reduces possibilities of addressing the social dimension of sustainable
development as well as interdependencies among environmental issues.
Knowledge inclusion is therefore a topic that could potentially help to harmonise
and democratise policy- and decision-making, as well as contribute to identifying and reducing existing blind knowledge spots.
3. Stakeholder participation and deliberation also require more careful consideration, especially in some of the cases, since the incorporation of practitioner’s
perspectives and local knowledge in assessments as well as stakeholder deliberation in management are vital for the successful implementation of EAM . How to
arrange this in an effective, meaningful and purposeful manner in each case,
however, needs to be further studied.
4. We also feel that there is substantial room for improvement with regard to coping
with scientifi c uncertainty and stakeholder disagreements in both assessment
and management. We conclude that there are examples of science-based precautionary approaches and methods but that a comprehensive and coherent strategy
for addressing uncertainty and disagreements is often lacking. Both the institutional designs of the investigated science-policy interfaces as well as the processes of stakeholder interaction need to be adapted to meet the intentions of
‘good’ environmental governance as laid down in various EU principles (e.g. in
the CFP, EC 2002 ).
5. Despite the commonly expressed idea of a clear separation between assessment
and management, the studied science-policy interactions appear often rather diffuse and politicised . This lack of transparency and refl ection about the practical
realities of science-policy interactions and how they evolve and are constructed
may mislead both political decision-makers and the public and thus potentially
hamper effective management progress. As it is unavoidable that the spheres of
science and policy are blurred, it is even more important to be transparent about
points of departures, underlying values, methodological choices and approaches
used in assessment and management related to environmental governance.
Furthermore, improved communication about the internal processes of science
and policymaking and their interlinkages (‘co-production’) is similarly important to counteract existing governance defi cits.
Acknowledgements This chapter draws on results from the research programme ‘Environmental
Risk Governance of the Baltic Sea’ (2009–2015, Michael Gilek, programme coordinator), which
involved research teams from Södertörn University in Sweden, Åbo Akademi University in
Finland, Dialogik/Stuttgart University in Germany and Gdansk University in Poland. The funding
came from the Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies and the European Community’s
Seventh Framework Programme (2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 217246 made with the
joint Baltic Sea research and development programme BONUS, as well as from the German
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency, the Swedish Research Council FORMAS, the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher
Education and the Academy of Finland. SL also acknowledges funding from the Swedish Research
Council and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. We wish to express our warmest thanks to these institutions for enabling us to conduct this research, to all participants in the research programme that
directly or indirectly provided useful input and to all informants sharing their experiences, as well
as to two reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of the chapter.
S. Linke et al.