243
missing, for example, by classifying substances in groups according to so-called
worst-case assumptions or by assuming that exotic species are always invasive
unless scientifi c studies reasonably indicate the opposite (Cooney and Dickson
2005 ; Karlsson 2010 ; Sandin and Hansson 2002 ). In contrast with the common
decision-making approach to weigh costs and benefi ts, there are good reasons to
instead, or as a complement, apply the maximin criteria to minimise the probability
of the worst-case scenario, since data on costs and benefi ts often are missing or
uncertain (cf. Hansson 1997 ). In some cases, this has to be institutionalised as hard
regulation, but in other cases soft policy and regulatory approaches might be possible and even preferable as a testing ground where proactive stakeholders can show
a way forward that others can eventually follow. A combination of soft and hard
regulations can often be rewarding (cf. Hassler 2016 ).
Finally, a smoother transfer of data and knowledge from assessment to management is needed, hand in hand with a more holistic approach in the design of decisionmaking bodies. This relates to improved sectoral integration of science-based
advice (e.g. eutrophication and fi sheries are interrelated in numerous ways, such as
oxygen depletion affecting the survival of cod eggs) and the need for more streamlined management systems. Examples of the latter are the multiple and timeconsuming processes of integrating scientifi c data on hazardous chemicals in the
REACH regulatory system, where long-lasting negotiations and interpretation exercises have often replaced an effi cient use of new scientifi c evidence and where
arbitrary and normative thresholds place an unreasonably high burden of proof on
agencies before decisions can be made (cf. Karlsson 2010 ).
In order to accomplish these various points in a coordinated and rational manner,
we see a need for what could be called a ‘Baltic Sea Science Panel’, which potentially could be developed as part of the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea (ICES) (Table 10.4 ).
In the area of stakeholder participation and communication , our critique is that
there is an underdeveloped situation in which participation is framed instrumentally. Also there are recurring problems of representation and power (Table 10.4 ;
Boström et al. 2016 ). In response to this, we have identifi ed several possible initiatives that together could pave the way for a pathway towards inclusive stakeholder
deliberation .
First, it is important to make provisions for stakeholder inclusion and deliberation more explicit in EAM implementation, for example, linked to implementation
of the EU MSFD, HELCOM BSAP and EUSBSR. Despite recognition of the fundamental role of stakeholder input in the so-called Malawi principles for an ecosystem approach (cf. Hammer 2015 ), EAM in the Baltic Sea is today primarily framed
as being based on the best available scientifi c knowledge. This is, for example, seen
in the HELCOM defi nition of EAM (cf. Karlsson et al. 2016 ). We believe that there
are strong instrumental (e.g. linked to governability and governance outcomes) and
normative arguments (e.g. linked to democratic ideals of just representation) for
striving to complement this science-based approach with a stronger focus on
developing participatory aspects of EAM (cf. Jönsson et al. 2016 ). This could
10 Seeking Pathways Towards Improved Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea
missing, for example, by classifying substances in groups according to so-called
worst-case assumptions or by assuming that exotic species are always invasive
unless scientifi c studies reasonably indicate the opposite (Cooney and Dickson
2005 ; Karlsson 2010 ; Sandin and Hansson 2002 ). In contrast with the common
decision-making approach to weigh costs and benefi ts, there are good reasons to
instead, or as a complement, apply the maximin criteria to minimise the probability
of the worst-case scenario, since data on costs and benefi ts often are missing or
uncertain (cf. Hansson 1997 ). In some cases, this has to be institutionalised as hard
regulation, but in other cases soft policy and regulatory approaches might be possible and even preferable as a testing ground where proactive stakeholders can show
a way forward that others can eventually follow. A combination of soft and hard
regulations can often be rewarding (cf. Hassler 2016 ).
Finally, a smoother transfer of data and knowledge from assessment to management is needed, hand in hand with a more holistic approach in the design of decisionmaking bodies. This relates to improved sectoral integration of science-based
advice (e.g. eutrophication and fi sheries are interrelated in numerous ways, such as
oxygen depletion affecting the survival of cod eggs) and the need for more streamlined management systems. Examples of the latter are the multiple and timeconsuming processes of integrating scientifi c data on hazardous chemicals in the
REACH regulatory system, where long-lasting negotiations and interpretation exercises have often replaced an effi cient use of new scientifi c evidence and where
arbitrary and normative thresholds place an unreasonably high burden of proof on
agencies before decisions can be made (cf. Karlsson 2010 ).
In order to accomplish these various points in a coordinated and rational manner,
we see a need for what could be called a ‘Baltic Sea Science Panel’, which potentially could be developed as part of the International Council for the Exploration of
the Sea (ICES) (Table 10.4 ).
In the area of stakeholder participation and communication , our critique is that
there is an underdeveloped situation in which participation is framed instrumentally. Also there are recurring problems of representation and power (Table 10.4 ;
Boström et al. 2016 ). In response to this, we have identifi ed several possible initiatives that together could pave the way for a pathway towards inclusive stakeholder
deliberation .
First, it is important to make provisions for stakeholder inclusion and deliberation more explicit in EAM implementation, for example, linked to implementation
of the EU MSFD, HELCOM BSAP and EUSBSR. Despite recognition of the fundamental role of stakeholder input in the so-called Malawi principles for an ecosystem approach (cf. Hammer 2015 ), EAM in the Baltic Sea is today primarily framed
as being based on the best available scientifi c knowledge. This is, for example, seen
in the HELCOM defi nition of EAM (cf. Karlsson et al. 2016 ). We believe that there
are strong instrumental (e.g. linked to governability and governance outcomes) and
normative arguments (e.g. linked to democratic ideals of just representation) for
striving to complement this science-based approach with a stronger focus on
developing participatory aspects of EAM (cf. Jönsson et al. 2016 ). This could
10 Seeking Pathways Towards Improved Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea