242
would be more rewarding and easier to deal with from multiple, including environmental and economic, points of views. Here, we see the current ambitions and initiatives to develop integrative policies in the form of marine spatial planning as a
potentially important step to improve multisectoral integration in the governance of
Baltic marine territory and resources (e.g. Gilek et al. 2015a ). However, MSP is at
an early stage of development, especially in relation to transboundary governance
challenges, such as in the case of the Baltic Sea, which means that substantial efforts
are needed in terms of both research and practice in the coming years to develop
ideas, processes and approaches that could facilitate integrative MSP.
Finally, we argue that marine governance always will be a work in progress, not
least considering the commonly evolving character of natural systems and factors
such as policy aims, environmental status and values, stakeholder interests and
stakes (cf. Gilek et al. 2015a ). This means that marine governance arrangements and
aims will continuously need to be reviewed and reformed in a refl exive manner to
adapt to new contexts and challenges. In order to do so, we argue that there is a need
to set up an institution of one type or another to regularly review and reform Baltic
environmental governance – a ‘Baltic Sea Policy Review Mechanism’ (Table 10.4 ).
It should be further investigated how this ‘mechanism’ could be achieved – for
example, if it should be part of existing institutions or not, if it should be a temporary or standing body and if governments should play a role themselves or rather
appoint a more independent top-level forum. In the further development of this
mechanism, models in other areas could be analysed, for instance, the GOC on
oceans, the IPCP on chemicals, the IPCC on climate and the IPBES on biodiversity,
which all have different aims, compositions, functions and ways of operation.
3
Regarding assessment-management interactions , we have concluded that there
are insuffi cient coordination and integration and insuffi cient handling of uncertainty. We have also identifi ed a need to acknowledge various forms of incertitude
(Table 10.4 ; cf. Linke et al. 2016 ), for example, by applying interdisciplinary
assessment and management approaches and methods from post-normal science
studies, as well as science-based precautionary management strategies.
First, it is important to set up assessment strategies that support and develop
interdisciplinary approaches and incorporate laymen’s and stakeholder’s practical
knowledge. Besides improved natural science data and studies, knowledge directly
needed from a management point of view is considered important, not least in terms
of socio-economic data on the so-called ‘cost of no action’ (the Baltic Stern project
is a good start in this respect, cf. Baltic Stern 2013 ).
Second, explicit regional requirements and guidelines for uncertainty appraisal
need to be developed. In addition, regulatory provisions are needed to cope with
uncertainty by changing the burden of proof and imposing other types of precautionary measures (cf. Karlsson 2005 ; Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ). One important measure would be to allow science-based precautionary default values when data is
3 See http://www.globaloceancommission.org/about-the-commission/mandate/ , http://www.ipcp.
ch/about-ipcp , http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml , http://www.ipbes.net/aboutipbes.html
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson
would be more rewarding and easier to deal with from multiple, including environmental and economic, points of views. Here, we see the current ambitions and initiatives to develop integrative policies in the form of marine spatial planning as a
potentially important step to improve multisectoral integration in the governance of
Baltic marine territory and resources (e.g. Gilek et al. 2015a ). However, MSP is at
an early stage of development, especially in relation to transboundary governance
challenges, such as in the case of the Baltic Sea, which means that substantial efforts
are needed in terms of both research and practice in the coming years to develop
ideas, processes and approaches that could facilitate integrative MSP.
Finally, we argue that marine governance always will be a work in progress, not
least considering the commonly evolving character of natural systems and factors
such as policy aims, environmental status and values, stakeholder interests and
stakes (cf. Gilek et al. 2015a ). This means that marine governance arrangements and
aims will continuously need to be reviewed and reformed in a refl exive manner to
adapt to new contexts and challenges. In order to do so, we argue that there is a need
to set up an institution of one type or another to regularly review and reform Baltic
environmental governance – a ‘Baltic Sea Policy Review Mechanism’ (Table 10.4 ).
It should be further investigated how this ‘mechanism’ could be achieved – for
example, if it should be part of existing institutions or not, if it should be a temporary or standing body and if governments should play a role themselves or rather
appoint a more independent top-level forum. In the further development of this
mechanism, models in other areas could be analysed, for instance, the GOC on
oceans, the IPCP on chemicals, the IPCC on climate and the IPBES on biodiversity,
which all have different aims, compositions, functions and ways of operation.
3
Regarding assessment-management interactions , we have concluded that there
are insuffi cient coordination and integration and insuffi cient handling of uncertainty. We have also identifi ed a need to acknowledge various forms of incertitude
(Table 10.4 ; cf. Linke et al. 2016 ), for example, by applying interdisciplinary
assessment and management approaches and methods from post-normal science
studies, as well as science-based precautionary management strategies.
First, it is important to set up assessment strategies that support and develop
interdisciplinary approaches and incorporate laymen’s and stakeholder’s practical
knowledge. Besides improved natural science data and studies, knowledge directly
needed from a management point of view is considered important, not least in terms
of socio-economic data on the so-called ‘cost of no action’ (the Baltic Stern project
is a good start in this respect, cf. Baltic Stern 2013 ).
Second, explicit regional requirements and guidelines for uncertainty appraisal
need to be developed. In addition, regulatory provisions are needed to cope with
uncertainty by changing the burden of proof and imposing other types of precautionary measures (cf. Karlsson 2005 ; Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ). One important measure would be to allow science-based precautionary default values when data is
3 See http://www.globaloceancommission.org/about-the-commission/mandate/ , http://www.ipcp.
ch/about-ipcp , http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml , http://www.ipbes.net/aboutipbes.html
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson