14
EAM and investigate if the present institutional and regulatory set-up supports
EAM implementation. The authors apply the concept of refl exive governance in
order to analyse various governance modes and elaborate on possible pathways to
make Baltic Sea environmental governance more sustainable. Next, Linke and
colleagues (Chap. 8 ) compare the science-policy interfaces linked to the fi ve cases,
with a focus on organisational structures and management of uncertainties and
stakeholder disagreements . On that basis, possible routes for improving interaction
between science-based advice and environmental management are discussed, in
particular regarding implementation of the EAM. Finally, Jönsson and co-workers
(Chap. 9 ) analyse how risks and problems are framed in the fi ve cases and what role
communication plays in the governance context with respect to institutions and
procedures. The results point to the importance of widening the stakeholder concept
and acknowledging the importance of citizen and public communication in practice.
Following the fi rst and second part of the book, Gilek and Karlsson (Chap. 10 )
draw from the conclusions and recommendations of previous chapters to identify
root problems and possible pathways for improving environmental governance in
the Baltic Sea.
Acknowledgements The research leading to these results was funded by the Foundation for
Baltic and East European Studies and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme
(2007–2013) under grant agreement n° 217246 made with the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme BONUS, as well as by the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF), the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish Research Council
FORMAS, the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the Academy of Finland. We
wish to thank these institutions for enabling this research. Two peer reviewers are also thanked for
valuable comments on an earlier version of the chapter.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial 2.5 License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ ) which permits any
noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and source are credited.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included
in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or
reproduce the material.
References
Andonova LB, Mitchell RB (2010) The rescaling of global environmental politics. Ann Rev
Environ Resour 35:255–282
Armitage DR, Berkes F, Doubleday N (eds) (2007) Adaptive co-management: collaboration,
learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver
Backer H, Leppänen JM, Brusendorff AC, Forsius K, Stankiewicz M, Mehtonen J, Pyhälä M,
Laamanen M, Paulomäki H, Vlasov N, Haaranen T (2010) HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan – a
regional programme of measures for the marine environment based on the ecosystem approach.
Mar Pollut Bull 60:642–649
M. Gilek et al.
EAM and investigate if the present institutional and regulatory set-up supports
EAM implementation. The authors apply the concept of refl exive governance in
order to analyse various governance modes and elaborate on possible pathways to
make Baltic Sea environmental governance more sustainable. Next, Linke and
colleagues (Chap. 8 ) compare the science-policy interfaces linked to the fi ve cases,
with a focus on organisational structures and management of uncertainties and
stakeholder disagreements . On that basis, possible routes for improving interaction
between science-based advice and environmental management are discussed, in
particular regarding implementation of the EAM. Finally, Jönsson and co-workers
(Chap. 9 ) analyse how risks and problems are framed in the fi ve cases and what role
communication plays in the governance context with respect to institutions and
procedures. The results point to the importance of widening the stakeholder concept
and acknowledging the importance of citizen and public communication in practice.
Following the fi rst and second part of the book, Gilek and Karlsson (Chap. 10 )
draw from the conclusions and recommendations of previous chapters to identify
root problems and possible pathways for improving environmental governance in
the Baltic Sea.
Acknowledgements The research leading to these results was funded by the Foundation for
Baltic and East European Studies and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme
(2007–2013) under grant agreement n° 217246 made with the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme BONUS, as well as by the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF), the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish Research Council
FORMAS, the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the Academy of Finland. We
wish to thank these institutions for enabling this research. Two peer reviewers are also thanked for
valuable comments on an earlier version of the chapter.
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial 2.5 License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ ) which permits any
noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s)
and source are credited.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the work’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if such material is not included
in the work’s Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory
regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to duplicate, adapt or
reproduce the material.
References
Andonova LB, Mitchell RB (2010) The rescaling of global environmental politics. Ann Rev
Environ Resour 35:255–282
Armitage DR, Berkes F, Doubleday N (eds) (2007) Adaptive co-management: collaboration,
learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver
Backer H, Leppänen JM, Brusendorff AC, Forsius K, Stankiewicz M, Mehtonen J, Pyhälä M,
Laamanen M, Paulomäki H, Vlasov N, Haaranen T (2010) HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan – a
regional programme of measures for the marine environment based on the ecosystem approach.
Mar Pollut Bull 60:642–649
M. Gilek et al.