34
EAM , there is still quite a way to go before socio-economic consequences and concerns are suffi ciently addressed in assessments and science-based advice.
In terms of uncertainty challenges , both BSAP and MSFD do, in line with EAM,
refer to ecosystem complexity and the importance of applying a precautionary
approach in marine environmental governance (cf. Udovyk and Gilek 2014 ). For
example, HELCOM and OSPAR ( 2003 ) defi ne EAM in the marine environment as:
[….] the comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best
available scientifi c knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify
and take action on infl uences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems , thereby
achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem
integrity. […] The application of the precautionary principle is equally a central part of the
ecosystem approach.
However, studies of guideline, assessment and advice documents linked to
MSFD (Udovyk and Gilek 2014 ) and the HELCOM BSAP (Udovyk and Gilek
2013 ) reveal a rather limited acknowledgement and management of uncertainty. In
fact, irreducible uncertainties associated with ecosystem dynamics and interdependencies are rarely mentioned in assessments and science-based advice (Udovyk and
Gilek 2013 ). Similarly, there are hardly any references to strategies or methods for
coping with such uncertainty. Instead, in line with the notion of achieving “best
available knowledge”, assessment and advice documents mainly acknowledge
uncertainty caused by low precision and accuracy in methods and a general lack of
scientifi c data for certain geographical areas and ecological endpoints.
The general strategy applied for managing epistemic uncertainty is to obtain
more data through an expanded monitoring network, with larger geographic and
temporal coverage (HELCOM 2009a ). Such a traditional empirical approach in science has in many ways been successful in and instrumental to reaching a consensual
understanding of the sources and impacts of eutrophication and of the importance
of various nutrients (e.g. Conley et al. 2009a ; Elmgren 2001 ). However, for generating
science-based advice on nutrient reduction requirements to reach environmental
objectives, alternative modelling approaches would be needed to better control
uncertainty associated with ecosystem dynamics (e.g. Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ).
Interestingly, however, our interviews revealed a not so uncommon “downplaying”
of model and scenario uncertainties in science-policy interactions linked to development of BSAP. Presumably, this can to some extent be explained by a common
ambition among scientists (Baltic Nest) and decision-makers (HELCOM) involved
to facilitate a regional agreement on nutrient reduction targets (cf. Linke et al 2014 ).
A strong acknowledgement of uncertainty could in this respect have been a reason
for disagreement rather than agreement.
An overview of scientifi c studies on Baltic Sea eutrophication exposes several
scientifi c disagreements on the sources and impacts of eutrophication that in various
ways have had signifi cant repercussions on stakeholder confl icts and management
decisions at national and regional levels (e.g. Elmgren 2001 ). At an early stage of
Baltic-wide eutrophication assessment and management, there was in the 1960s a
lively debate on whether or not anthropogenic eutrophication of the open Baltic Sea
was possible at all. Once compelling evidence for such large-scale human-induced
M. Karlsson et al.
EAM , there is still quite a way to go before socio-economic consequences and concerns are suffi ciently addressed in assessments and science-based advice.
In terms of uncertainty challenges , both BSAP and MSFD do, in line with EAM,
refer to ecosystem complexity and the importance of applying a precautionary
approach in marine environmental governance (cf. Udovyk and Gilek 2014 ). For
example, HELCOM and OSPAR ( 2003 ) defi ne EAM in the marine environment as:
[….] the comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best
available scientifi c knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify
and take action on infl uences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems , thereby
achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem
integrity. […] The application of the precautionary principle is equally a central part of the
ecosystem approach.
However, studies of guideline, assessment and advice documents linked to
MSFD (Udovyk and Gilek 2014 ) and the HELCOM BSAP (Udovyk and Gilek
2013 ) reveal a rather limited acknowledgement and management of uncertainty. In
fact, irreducible uncertainties associated with ecosystem dynamics and interdependencies are rarely mentioned in assessments and science-based advice (Udovyk and
Gilek 2013 ). Similarly, there are hardly any references to strategies or methods for
coping with such uncertainty. Instead, in line with the notion of achieving “best
available knowledge”, assessment and advice documents mainly acknowledge
uncertainty caused by low precision and accuracy in methods and a general lack of
scientifi c data for certain geographical areas and ecological endpoints.
The general strategy applied for managing epistemic uncertainty is to obtain
more data through an expanded monitoring network, with larger geographic and
temporal coverage (HELCOM 2009a ). Such a traditional empirical approach in science has in many ways been successful in and instrumental to reaching a consensual
understanding of the sources and impacts of eutrophication and of the importance
of various nutrients (e.g. Conley et al. 2009a ; Elmgren 2001 ). However, for generating
science-based advice on nutrient reduction requirements to reach environmental
objectives, alternative modelling approaches would be needed to better control
uncertainty associated with ecosystem dynamics (e.g. Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ).
Interestingly, however, our interviews revealed a not so uncommon “downplaying”
of model and scenario uncertainties in science-policy interactions linked to development of BSAP. Presumably, this can to some extent be explained by a common
ambition among scientists (Baltic Nest) and decision-makers (HELCOM) involved
to facilitate a regional agreement on nutrient reduction targets (cf. Linke et al 2014 ).
A strong acknowledgement of uncertainty could in this respect have been a reason
for disagreement rather than agreement.
An overview of scientifi c studies on Baltic Sea eutrophication exposes several
scientifi c disagreements on the sources and impacts of eutrophication that in various
ways have had signifi cant repercussions on stakeholder confl icts and management
decisions at national and regional levels (e.g. Elmgren 2001 ). At an early stage of
Baltic-wide eutrophication assessment and management, there was in the 1960s a
lively debate on whether or not anthropogenic eutrophication of the open Baltic Sea
was possible at all. Once compelling evidence for such large-scale human-induced
M. Karlsson et al.