238
10.3.1 Conclusions Based on the Three Cross-Case Studies
In spite of high policy ambitions, many initiatives and efforts made by a wide set of
actors and stakeholders, the overall conclusion of the three cross-case studies is that
implementation and enforcement generally lag behind in relation to existing objectives for the Baltic marine environment and that this to a signifi cant extent is associated with ‘imperfections’ in the studied governance structures and processes as
outlined above. However, to address the aim of this chapter – to develop more
concrete ideas for improvements – it is important to ask whether it is possible to
identify any root problems and causes for these implementation defi cits.
Based on the specifi c problems and shortcomings identifi ed in the cross-case
comparisons of the focused governance dimensions (multilevel and multisectoral
structures, assessment-management interactions and stakeholder communication
and participation), it is possible to discern a set of recurring problem areas (Table
10.3 ). These problem areas have in previous governance research been identifi ed as
key governance challenges (Söderström et al. 2015 ) and have for the purpose of our
analysis, given its limitations, been classifi ed as ‘root’ problems.
In the following discussion, these identifi ed root problems – together with conclusions from the individual cases – provide a basis to formulate broader pathways
as well as associated specifi c ideas about measures and ‘institutional reforms’ to
potentially improve Baltic Sea environmental governance (Table 10.4 ). In general,
we conclude that it is diffi cult to go much further with regard to adopted environmental targets for the Baltic Sea, without more fundamental changes, i.e. efforts for
improvement must consist of something else than ‘more of the same’. This is challenging and complex and requires a continuous and adaptive policy-making and
transition process. However, despite these challenges, some positive steps have
already been taken in line with our proposed pathways, albeit often in rudimentary
ways or only in specifi c cases. Hence, despite diffi culties, we do not see the proposed pathways as impossible to embark on more broadly.
It is hardly surprising, looking at the three cross-case governance dimensions
focused on in the book, that the root problems differ between governance structures,
assessment-management interactions and stakeholder participation (Table 10.4 ).
Still, even though root problems such as ‘insuffi cient coordination and integration’
and ‘insuffi cient fl exibility and adaptability’ were most infl uential and problematic
in the case of governance structures, these problems are also signifi cant and important with regard to other governance dimensions. This means that Table 10.4 should
not be seen as an attempt to strictly differentiate between totally different root problems and pathways for the studied governance dimensions. Instead, the table is an
attempt to organise our analysis by highlighting key root problems and potential
pathways associated with the studied governance dimensions.
This analysis reveals that current multilevel and multisectoral governance structures mainly are hampered by insuffi cient coordination and integration, as well as
insuffi cient fl exibility and adaptability (Table 10.4 ). In our cross-case analysis, we
identifi ed a set of specifi c ideas that together can promote a pathway for improved
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson
10.3.1 Conclusions Based on the Three Cross-Case Studies
In spite of high policy ambitions, many initiatives and efforts made by a wide set of
actors and stakeholders, the overall conclusion of the three cross-case studies is that
implementation and enforcement generally lag behind in relation to existing objectives for the Baltic marine environment and that this to a signifi cant extent is associated with ‘imperfections’ in the studied governance structures and processes as
outlined above. However, to address the aim of this chapter – to develop more
concrete ideas for improvements – it is important to ask whether it is possible to
identify any root problems and causes for these implementation defi cits.
Based on the specifi c problems and shortcomings identifi ed in the cross-case
comparisons of the focused governance dimensions (multilevel and multisectoral
structures, assessment-management interactions and stakeholder communication
and participation), it is possible to discern a set of recurring problem areas (Table
10.3 ). These problem areas have in previous governance research been identifi ed as
key governance challenges (Söderström et al. 2015 ) and have for the purpose of our
analysis, given its limitations, been classifi ed as ‘root’ problems.
In the following discussion, these identifi ed root problems – together with conclusions from the individual cases – provide a basis to formulate broader pathways
as well as associated specifi c ideas about measures and ‘institutional reforms’ to
potentially improve Baltic Sea environmental governance (Table 10.4 ). In general,
we conclude that it is diffi cult to go much further with regard to adopted environmental targets for the Baltic Sea, without more fundamental changes, i.e. efforts for
improvement must consist of something else than ‘more of the same’. This is challenging and complex and requires a continuous and adaptive policy-making and
transition process. However, despite these challenges, some positive steps have
already been taken in line with our proposed pathways, albeit often in rudimentary
ways or only in specifi c cases. Hence, despite diffi culties, we do not see the proposed pathways as impossible to embark on more broadly.
It is hardly surprising, looking at the three cross-case governance dimensions
focused on in the book, that the root problems differ between governance structures,
assessment-management interactions and stakeholder participation (Table 10.4 ).
Still, even though root problems such as ‘insuffi cient coordination and integration’
and ‘insuffi cient fl exibility and adaptability’ were most infl uential and problematic
in the case of governance structures, these problems are also signifi cant and important with regard to other governance dimensions. This means that Table 10.4 should
not be seen as an attempt to strictly differentiate between totally different root problems and pathways for the studied governance dimensions. Instead, the table is an
attempt to organise our analysis by highlighting key root problems and potential
pathways associated with the studied governance dimensions.
This analysis reveals that current multilevel and multisectoral governance structures mainly are hampered by insuffi cient coordination and integration, as well as
insuffi cient fl exibility and adaptability (Table 10.4 ). In our cross-case analysis, we
identifi ed a set of specifi c ideas that together can promote a pathway for improved
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson