237
This means that despite some successful exceptions as exemplifi ed above,
science- based advice is far from always used effectively in Baltic Sea environmental governance. This is apparent in the cases of eutrophication (Karlsson et al. 2016 )
and chemicals (Karlsson and Gilek 2016 ), where HELCOM has established detailed
regional assessments based on scientifi c input, but management measures are nonetheless seldom fully implemented nationally. Furthermore, risk assessments are
usually established based on a conventional view of what constitutes appropriate
scientifi c methodologies and knowledge, often overlooking non-standardised data
sources, uncertainty and interactions between various risks, as well as the need for
interdisciplinary perspectives and stakeholder input (Linke et al. 2016 ). The latter –
lack of stakeholder input – might cause worsened sociopolitical controversies,
especially in the presence of uncertainty. In particular, it opens up for strong politicisation where scientists without normative transparency engage in political discussions and politicians selectively interpret scientifi c results (Karlsson et al. 2011 ;
Linke et al. 2016 ).
Several chapters in the book analyse and discuss communication and stakeholder
participation . Both the EU and HELCOM have invested increasingly in this area of
environmental governance in recent years, as, for example, seen in HELCOM’s
BSAP stakeholder conferences and in RACs under the Common Fisheries Policy
(Boström et al. 2016 ; Jönsson et al. 2016 ; Sellke et al. 2016 ). To a large extent
though, the case studies reveal that participation in Baltic Sea environmental governance is generally regarded as having an instrumental role to serve the requirements
of public policy (Boström et al. 2016 ). It is of course positive if participation, as
assumed in this instrumental framing, leads to more effi cient and effective environmental governance and higher acceptance of decision-making processes. Still, this
instrumental focus on participation may result in the broader democratic values of
participation being overlooked (Jönsson et al. 2016 ). In addition, our fi ndings indicate that regional structures and processes for stakeholder input and critique are
often undeveloped or missing, as seen in the chemicals and IAS cases (Linke et al.
2016 ; Smolarz et al. 2016 ). Hence, despite ambitions to develop participation in
environmental governance and recent developments of, for example, the RAC system in fi sheries management, it can be concluded that regional structures and processes for stakeholder inclusion and deliberation generally remain rather
undeveloped in BSR.
Finally, there is an obvious lack of widely available supranational communication arenas in the Baltic Sea region, such as a common Baltic news media, which
undermines effective environmental communication. Media coverage at the national
level, on the other hand, is much more prominent, often making international coverage invisible (Jönsson et al. 2016 ). This is likely to obstruct opportunities for
environmental governance of the Baltic Sea, since the possibility of stakeholders
participating in regional societal debates is limited, as is the potential to develop a
common regional understanding of environmental challenges and opportunities. In
Table 10.3 , we summarise the problems we have found to be important in the crosscase analysis, identify specifi c problem areas and give concrete examples that illuminate our fi ndings better.
10 Seeking Pathways Towards Improved Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea
This means that despite some successful exceptions as exemplifi ed above,
science- based advice is far from always used effectively in Baltic Sea environmental governance. This is apparent in the cases of eutrophication (Karlsson et al. 2016 )
and chemicals (Karlsson and Gilek 2016 ), where HELCOM has established detailed
regional assessments based on scientifi c input, but management measures are nonetheless seldom fully implemented nationally. Furthermore, risk assessments are
usually established based on a conventional view of what constitutes appropriate
scientifi c methodologies and knowledge, often overlooking non-standardised data
sources, uncertainty and interactions between various risks, as well as the need for
interdisciplinary perspectives and stakeholder input (Linke et al. 2016 ). The latter –
lack of stakeholder input – might cause worsened sociopolitical controversies,
especially in the presence of uncertainty. In particular, it opens up for strong politicisation where scientists without normative transparency engage in political discussions and politicians selectively interpret scientifi c results (Karlsson et al. 2011 ;
Linke et al. 2016 ).
Several chapters in the book analyse and discuss communication and stakeholder
participation . Both the EU and HELCOM have invested increasingly in this area of
environmental governance in recent years, as, for example, seen in HELCOM’s
BSAP stakeholder conferences and in RACs under the Common Fisheries Policy
(Boström et al. 2016 ; Jönsson et al. 2016 ; Sellke et al. 2016 ). To a large extent
though, the case studies reveal that participation in Baltic Sea environmental governance is generally regarded as having an instrumental role to serve the requirements
of public policy (Boström et al. 2016 ). It is of course positive if participation, as
assumed in this instrumental framing, leads to more effi cient and effective environmental governance and higher acceptance of decision-making processes. Still, this
instrumental focus on participation may result in the broader democratic values of
participation being overlooked (Jönsson et al. 2016 ). In addition, our fi ndings indicate that regional structures and processes for stakeholder input and critique are
often undeveloped or missing, as seen in the chemicals and IAS cases (Linke et al.
2016 ; Smolarz et al. 2016 ). Hence, despite ambitions to develop participation in
environmental governance and recent developments of, for example, the RAC system in fi sheries management, it can be concluded that regional structures and processes for stakeholder inclusion and deliberation generally remain rather
undeveloped in BSR.
Finally, there is an obvious lack of widely available supranational communication arenas in the Baltic Sea region, such as a common Baltic news media, which
undermines effective environmental communication. Media coverage at the national
level, on the other hand, is much more prominent, often making international coverage invisible (Jönsson et al. 2016 ). This is likely to obstruct opportunities for
environmental governance of the Baltic Sea, since the possibility of stakeholders
participating in regional societal debates is limited, as is the potential to develop a
common regional understanding of environmental challenges and opportunities. In
Table 10.3 , we summarise the problems we have found to be important in the crosscase analysis, identify specifi c problem areas and give concrete examples that illuminate our fi ndings better.
10 Seeking Pathways Towards Improved Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea