35
eutrophication was available, there was instead an infected debate whether nitrogen
or phosphorus is the main causative nutrient in need of reduction measures (e.g.
Elmgren 2001 ).
Today, these natural science-based disagreements on nutrients have, according
to the interviewed scientists, been handled, and quite a consensual scientifi c view
exists, that emissions and levels of both nitrogen and phosphorus need to decrease
(Conley et al. 2009a ). However, some scientifi c disagreements still exist, mainly
with regard to methodological details, but still also according to our interviewees to
which nutrient to preferentially reduce.
As mentioned above, the process to develop and agree on the 2007 BSAP was
associated with a rather surprisingly low level of disagreement among stakeholders.
This consensual assessment-management process has been attributed to the close
cooperation between the Baltic Nest Institute and HELCOM while developing
science- based advice (Linke et al. 2014 ). For example, it has been argued that the
“HELCOM-Nest nexus” demonstrates how scientifi c assessments and sciencebased advice may underpin the legitimacy of political claims for regional environmental management (Linke et al. 2014 ). However, interviews with various actors
revealed that the interplay between scientifi c data used in the Baltic Nest system and
HELCOM’s management responses is interpreted differently by stakeholders in the
Baltic Sea region. Some see the Baltic Nest system as a concrete and illustrative tool
for coming up with effective remedies, while others are more critical and argue that
the model has received too much attention at the expense of other models (cf. Linke
et al. 2014 ). Recently, strong criticism from, for example, farmers has also been
voiced concerning the political conclusions on the sharing of responsibility for
national reduction obligations (BFFE 2013 ; Linke et al. 2014 ; LRF 2013 ). The
Baltic Nest model is, however, under continuous development and improvement
(BNI 2014 ; Johansson et al. 2007 ), and the linkage between risk assessment and risk
management remains central to the governance of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.
What also came up in interviews is that there is an ongoing discussion, linked to
implementation of eutrophication policy, in the scientifi c literature on the potential
effectiveness and effi ciency of various management measures. For example, there
are disagreements concerning which specifi c reduction measures are most costeffective when comparing costs for direct emission reduction measures with costs
for land-use changes designed to increase nutrient retention (e.g. Elofsson 2010 ;
Gren 2008 ; Huhtala et al. 2009 ; Lundberg 2013 ). Some studies and experiments
have also suggested and tested alternative, technical solutions to reduce nutrient
concentrations in the Baltic Sea such as artifi cial oxygenation, changes in saltwater
infl ow and chemical sequestration of phosphorus buried in the sediment (see, e.g. the
review by Conley et al. 2009b ). Still, although some “engineering”-type measures,
such as phosphorus binding with aluminium, were argued to potentially be effective
in specifi c coastal areas, their potential to address open sea eutrophication was
generally seen as marginal by the scientists, NGOs and decision-makers we interviewed. The overall view is that external nutrient reduction – i.e. before nutrients
enter the sea – is the only truly effective long-term strategy to combat eutrophication
(as, e.g. also argued by Conley et al. 2009a ).
2 Eutrophication and the Ecosystem Approach to Management: A Case Study…
eutrophication was available, there was instead an infected debate whether nitrogen
or phosphorus is the main causative nutrient in need of reduction measures (e.g.
Elmgren 2001 ).
Today, these natural science-based disagreements on nutrients have, according
to the interviewed scientists, been handled, and quite a consensual scientifi c view
exists, that emissions and levels of both nitrogen and phosphorus need to decrease
(Conley et al. 2009a ). However, some scientifi c disagreements still exist, mainly
with regard to methodological details, but still also according to our interviewees to
which nutrient to preferentially reduce.
As mentioned above, the process to develop and agree on the 2007 BSAP was
associated with a rather surprisingly low level of disagreement among stakeholders.
This consensual assessment-management process has been attributed to the close
cooperation between the Baltic Nest Institute and HELCOM while developing
science- based advice (Linke et al. 2014 ). For example, it has been argued that the
“HELCOM-Nest nexus” demonstrates how scientifi c assessments and sciencebased advice may underpin the legitimacy of political claims for regional environmental management (Linke et al. 2014 ). However, interviews with various actors
revealed that the interplay between scientifi c data used in the Baltic Nest system and
HELCOM’s management responses is interpreted differently by stakeholders in the
Baltic Sea region. Some see the Baltic Nest system as a concrete and illustrative tool
for coming up with effective remedies, while others are more critical and argue that
the model has received too much attention at the expense of other models (cf. Linke
et al. 2014 ). Recently, strong criticism from, for example, farmers has also been
voiced concerning the political conclusions on the sharing of responsibility for
national reduction obligations (BFFE 2013 ; Linke et al. 2014 ; LRF 2013 ). The
Baltic Nest model is, however, under continuous development and improvement
(BNI 2014 ; Johansson et al. 2007 ), and the linkage between risk assessment and risk
management remains central to the governance of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea.
What also came up in interviews is that there is an ongoing discussion, linked to
implementation of eutrophication policy, in the scientifi c literature on the potential
effectiveness and effi ciency of various management measures. For example, there
are disagreements concerning which specifi c reduction measures are most costeffective when comparing costs for direct emission reduction measures with costs
for land-use changes designed to increase nutrient retention (e.g. Elofsson 2010 ;
Gren 2008 ; Huhtala et al. 2009 ; Lundberg 2013 ). Some studies and experiments
have also suggested and tested alternative, technical solutions to reduce nutrient
concentrations in the Baltic Sea such as artifi cial oxygenation, changes in saltwater
infl ow and chemical sequestration of phosphorus buried in the sediment (see, e.g. the
review by Conley et al. 2009b ). Still, although some “engineering”-type measures,
such as phosphorus binding with aluminium, were argued to potentially be effective
in specifi c coastal areas, their potential to address open sea eutrophication was
generally seen as marginal by the scientists, NGOs and decision-makers we interviewed. The overall view is that external nutrient reduction – i.e. before nutrients
enter the sea – is the only truly effective long-term strategy to combat eutrophication
(as, e.g. also argued by Conley et al. 2009a ).
2 Eutrophication and the Ecosystem Approach to Management: A Case Study…