236
and measures for implementation. The international policies in place also span different sectors, but the mechanisms for coordinating them vary and are far from suffi ciently developed as, for example, clearly illustrated in the EU Strategy for BSR
(EUSBSR) and the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) relating to, for example, eutrophication (Karlsson et al. 2016 ). A parallel situation with sectors’ cleavages and tensions (e.g. between environmental protection on the one hand and the
use of natural resources on the other) often exists at the national and local levels.
The prospects for radical multilevel and multisectoral coordination and collaboration in the near future are therefore rather small, but it should not be forgotten that
vertical and horizontal interactions in some situations take place by ‘uploading’
HELCOM recommendations into binding EU directives (Gilek et al. 2015a ).
Adding to this complexity, the governance institutions and processes have developed rapidly over the years (Boström et al. 2016 ; Jönsson et al. 2016 ), recently by
including venues for stakeholder participation such as Regional Advisory Councils
(RACs) in EU fi sheries management (Sellke et al. 2016 ). What has also developed
rapidly is the extent to which nations in the region have put efforts into marine
environmental governance, spanning from forerunners to those whose activities
were limited until EU membership, with the exception of those who are still lagging
behind on implementation.
Moreover, numerous actors and networks operate in non-formal governance
structures in the region, carrying out countless projects in the marine governance
fi eld (Boström et al. 2016 ). All in all, the number of possible interactions, both vertically and horizontally, is massive, which not only opens up the possibilities for
collaboration and learning, for instance, between sectors (e.g. HELCOM Fisheries/
Agriculture Forums in relation to BSAP implementation) but may also in other
contexts impede possibilities to steer developments and bridge various sector interests. Hence, despite dense and highly interactive multilevel and multi-actor governance structures, integration between these is commonly insuffi ciently developed.
Regarding assessment-management interactions , the Baltic Sea is often referred
to as one of the best-investigated seas in the world, which has laid a foundation for
generating science-based advice (e.g. HELCOM 2010 ; Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ).
This has in some instances led to, at least partially, successful management measures, as seen, for example, in HELCOM’s identifi cation and management of pollution hotspots and some hazardous chemicals such as PCBs, despite long recovery
times from such marine pollution (Karlsson et al. 2011 ; Karlsson and Gilek 2016 ).
A mismatch often exists between the more common regional scientifi c assessments and the frequently used national management strategies and measures (Linke
et al. 2016 ). Moreover, even in situations when assessment and management regimes
address the same level, they often focus on diverging policies and organisational
requirements (e.g. EU MSFD and HELCOM BSAP), without suffi cient coordination (Karlsson et al. 2016 ). These institutional and other mismatches cause gaps and
overlaps between assessment and management, as well as in the operational chain
spanning from defi nition of environmental objectives over environmental assessment and monitoring to implementation of management measures.
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson
and measures for implementation. The international policies in place also span different sectors, but the mechanisms for coordinating them vary and are far from suffi ciently developed as, for example, clearly illustrated in the EU Strategy for BSR
(EUSBSR) and the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) relating to, for example, eutrophication (Karlsson et al. 2016 ). A parallel situation with sectors’ cleavages and tensions (e.g. between environmental protection on the one hand and the
use of natural resources on the other) often exists at the national and local levels.
The prospects for radical multilevel and multisectoral coordination and collaboration in the near future are therefore rather small, but it should not be forgotten that
vertical and horizontal interactions in some situations take place by ‘uploading’
HELCOM recommendations into binding EU directives (Gilek et al. 2015a ).
Adding to this complexity, the governance institutions and processes have developed rapidly over the years (Boström et al. 2016 ; Jönsson et al. 2016 ), recently by
including venues for stakeholder participation such as Regional Advisory Councils
(RACs) in EU fi sheries management (Sellke et al. 2016 ). What has also developed
rapidly is the extent to which nations in the region have put efforts into marine
environmental governance, spanning from forerunners to those whose activities
were limited until EU membership, with the exception of those who are still lagging
behind on implementation.
Moreover, numerous actors and networks operate in non-formal governance
structures in the region, carrying out countless projects in the marine governance
fi eld (Boström et al. 2016 ). All in all, the number of possible interactions, both vertically and horizontally, is massive, which not only opens up the possibilities for
collaboration and learning, for instance, between sectors (e.g. HELCOM Fisheries/
Agriculture Forums in relation to BSAP implementation) but may also in other
contexts impede possibilities to steer developments and bridge various sector interests. Hence, despite dense and highly interactive multilevel and multi-actor governance structures, integration between these is commonly insuffi ciently developed.
Regarding assessment-management interactions , the Baltic Sea is often referred
to as one of the best-investigated seas in the world, which has laid a foundation for
generating science-based advice (e.g. HELCOM 2010 ; Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ).
This has in some instances led to, at least partially, successful management measures, as seen, for example, in HELCOM’s identifi cation and management of pollution hotspots and some hazardous chemicals such as PCBs, despite long recovery
times from such marine pollution (Karlsson et al. 2011 ; Karlsson and Gilek 2016 ).
A mismatch often exists between the more common regional scientifi c assessments and the frequently used national management strategies and measures (Linke
et al. 2016 ). Moreover, even in situations when assessment and management regimes
address the same level, they often focus on diverging policies and organisational
requirements (e.g. EU MSFD and HELCOM BSAP), without suffi cient coordination (Karlsson et al. 2016 ). These institutional and other mismatches cause gaps and
overlaps between assessment and management, as well as in the operational chain
spanning from defi nition of environmental objectives over environmental assessment and monitoring to implementation of management measures.
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson