36
2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
This study has described and analysed if and how present institutional structures
and interactions between scientifi c assessment and environmental management are
suffi cient for implementing EAM in the case of Baltic Sea eutrophication and what
that might mean in relation to the policy objectives in place. We have also studied
knowledge integration and the way uncertainty and disagreement is dealt with or
not when it comes to assessment-management interactions.
Regarding governance structures , we have shown that there is a wide array of
eutrophication-related policies and institutions in place at national, Baltic Sea and
European levels. Obviously there is a risk that such complex structures may imply
contradictory, overlapping or redundant institutional arrangements which might
lead to institutional tensions and ineffi ciencies (cf. Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ). However,
we have in this case study observed mostly synergistic institutional interactions to
deal with Baltic Sea eutrophication, where policies focused on mitigating eutrophication seem to mutually enforce each other. A striking example here is MSFD and
BSAP where nothing in BSAP prevents implementing MSFD and vice versa. On
the contrary, the eutrophication segments of these policies seem to have developed
in a rather co-evolutionary manner – both are, for example, explicitly based on
EAM and a Baltic Sea-wide coordination of management measures. These synergies support the implementation of MSFD and BSAP and may even strengthen the
regulatory weaker HELCOM’s position and role in eutrophication governance,
especially since Russia is a party to the Helsinki Convention (cf. Söderström et al.
2015 ).
However, there are also obvious confl icting institutional interactions linked to
eutrophication, particularly between sectoral (e.g. agriculture ) and environmental
policies in the EU system (cf. Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ; De Santo 2015 ). Most important for this context, the CAP continues to subsidise intensive agriculture with at
best only minor consideration of environmental objectives for the marine environment, allowing for high inputs of nutrients , of which much ends up in the Baltic Sea
sooner or later. In spite of EAM being expressed in MSFD , and in spite of the aim
of EUSBSR , no effective coordination mechanism in relation to agriculture is in
place today.
In order to enhance possibilities to reach the eutrophication objective in place, a
number of structural changes seem warranted:
First, multi-sector coordination of policies is needed within European, regional
and national institutional structures. This is most obvious within the EU, where
goals and means in the EU’s CAP should be adequately adapted to EU’s environmental objectives (as, e.g. manifested in the MSFD), in line with the environmental
integration principle in the treaty (TFEU 2007 , Article 11). Without EU regulatory
harmony between the policy domains of agriculture and environment, EAM will
hardly be applied in a relevant manner in reality. Second, further multilevel coordination of objectives and policies adopted by institutions at European, Baltic Sea and
national levels is possible, for example, between the EU and HELCOM. HELCOM,
M. Karlsson et al.
2.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
This study has described and analysed if and how present institutional structures
and interactions between scientifi c assessment and environmental management are
suffi cient for implementing EAM in the case of Baltic Sea eutrophication and what
that might mean in relation to the policy objectives in place. We have also studied
knowledge integration and the way uncertainty and disagreement is dealt with or
not when it comes to assessment-management interactions.
Regarding governance structures , we have shown that there is a wide array of
eutrophication-related policies and institutions in place at national, Baltic Sea and
European levels. Obviously there is a risk that such complex structures may imply
contradictory, overlapping or redundant institutional arrangements which might
lead to institutional tensions and ineffi ciencies (cf. Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ). However,
we have in this case study observed mostly synergistic institutional interactions to
deal with Baltic Sea eutrophication, where policies focused on mitigating eutrophication seem to mutually enforce each other. A striking example here is MSFD and
BSAP where nothing in BSAP prevents implementing MSFD and vice versa. On
the contrary, the eutrophication segments of these policies seem to have developed
in a rather co-evolutionary manner – both are, for example, explicitly based on
EAM and a Baltic Sea-wide coordination of management measures. These synergies support the implementation of MSFD and BSAP and may even strengthen the
regulatory weaker HELCOM’s position and role in eutrophication governance,
especially since Russia is a party to the Helsinki Convention (cf. Söderström et al.
2015 ).
However, there are also obvious confl icting institutional interactions linked to
eutrophication, particularly between sectoral (e.g. agriculture ) and environmental
policies in the EU system (cf. Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ; De Santo 2015 ). Most important for this context, the CAP continues to subsidise intensive agriculture with at
best only minor consideration of environmental objectives for the marine environment, allowing for high inputs of nutrients , of which much ends up in the Baltic Sea
sooner or later. In spite of EAM being expressed in MSFD , and in spite of the aim
of EUSBSR , no effective coordination mechanism in relation to agriculture is in
place today.
In order to enhance possibilities to reach the eutrophication objective in place, a
number of structural changes seem warranted:
First, multi-sector coordination of policies is needed within European, regional
and national institutional structures. This is most obvious within the EU, where
goals and means in the EU’s CAP should be adequately adapted to EU’s environmental objectives (as, e.g. manifested in the MSFD), in line with the environmental
integration principle in the treaty (TFEU 2007 , Article 11). Without EU regulatory
harmony between the policy domains of agriculture and environment, EAM will
hardly be applied in a relevant manner in reality. Second, further multilevel coordination of objectives and policies adopted by institutions at European, Baltic Sea and
national levels is possible, for example, between the EU and HELCOM. HELCOM,
M. Karlsson et al.