37
and the EU, should strive to create and strengthen synergies with each other’s policies based on EAM. We see, for example, no reason why the objectives, timetables
and programmes should differ between, for example, MSFD and BSAP. Finally,
effective concrete measures and fi nancing for these are, at the end of the day, always
indispensable, irrespective of the institution and regulatory level. Several ideas for
potentially positive concrete measures also came up in this study, not least in the
interviews, for example, regarding the short-term need for reducing the use and,
thereby, the losses of fertilisers and nutrients , respectively, and the long-term need
for more fundamental structural changes in agriculture, for instance, by changing
the geographical balance between husbandry and crop production. The latter would
most likely necessitate a major CAP reform, though, as well as comprehensive
national strategies.
When looking at assessment -management ( science-policy ) interactions in the
process leading up to BSAP , what is clear is that this was characterised by a rather
straightforward translation of results from the Baltic Nest system to science-based
advice and subsequent decisions. This process seems to have been facilitated by a
tight coevolutionary interplay focussing on consensual knowledge between scientists linked to the Baltic Nest Institute and those involved in the management regime
under HELCOM. During this initial stage of BSAP development, scientifi c uncertainty linked to eutrophication assessments and advice was not a primary issue of
concern, and hardly any major disagreements among either countries or stakeholder
groups could be observed. Today, however, during the ongoing national implementation of BSAP , engagement and critique, not least by some farmer’s organisations,
on eutrophication management strategies and measures, have grown and become
far more detailed in terms of, for example, uncertainties and which measures to
optimally take, in particular in relation to interpretations of cost-benefi t analyses.
Such increased stakeholder engagement and disagreement in response to implementation of proposed concrete nutrient reduction measures is probably what is to
be expected given that different stakeholders’ values and interests are related to
different costs and benefi ts during implementation.
Our analyses of science-policy interactions also reveal that signifi cant challenges
still remain in terms of elaborating concrete strategies for implementing EAM ,
which we argue is needed to reach a good environmental status in terms of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea:
First, integration of various forms of knowledge relating to social, economic and
environmental risks, costs and benefi ts of eutrophication is indispensible for implementing EAM. However, despite a general awareness of this need among decisionmakers, scientists and other stakeholders, and despite recent substantial contributions
by the BalticSTERN research network, socio-economic knowledge, assessments
and advice on eutrophication are still in need of development. One set of issues far
from resolved concerns how to optimally allocate responsibilities for reducing
nutrient loads in line with BSAP and if optimal means cost-effective (by means of,
e.g. cap and trade) or something else (e.g. BalticStern 2013 ; Ahtiainen et al. 2014 ;
Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ; Wulff et al. 2014 ). Second, given the complex ecosystem
dynamics associated with eutrophication, coping with fundamental uncertainties is
2 Eutrophication and the Ecosystem Approach to Management: A Case Study…
and the EU, should strive to create and strengthen synergies with each other’s policies based on EAM. We see, for example, no reason why the objectives, timetables
and programmes should differ between, for example, MSFD and BSAP. Finally,
effective concrete measures and fi nancing for these are, at the end of the day, always
indispensable, irrespective of the institution and regulatory level. Several ideas for
potentially positive concrete measures also came up in this study, not least in the
interviews, for example, regarding the short-term need for reducing the use and,
thereby, the losses of fertilisers and nutrients , respectively, and the long-term need
for more fundamental structural changes in agriculture, for instance, by changing
the geographical balance between husbandry and crop production. The latter would
most likely necessitate a major CAP reform, though, as well as comprehensive
national strategies.
When looking at assessment -management ( science-policy ) interactions in the
process leading up to BSAP , what is clear is that this was characterised by a rather
straightforward translation of results from the Baltic Nest system to science-based
advice and subsequent decisions. This process seems to have been facilitated by a
tight coevolutionary interplay focussing on consensual knowledge between scientists linked to the Baltic Nest Institute and those involved in the management regime
under HELCOM. During this initial stage of BSAP development, scientifi c uncertainty linked to eutrophication assessments and advice was not a primary issue of
concern, and hardly any major disagreements among either countries or stakeholder
groups could be observed. Today, however, during the ongoing national implementation of BSAP , engagement and critique, not least by some farmer’s organisations,
on eutrophication management strategies and measures, have grown and become
far more detailed in terms of, for example, uncertainties and which measures to
optimally take, in particular in relation to interpretations of cost-benefi t analyses.
Such increased stakeholder engagement and disagreement in response to implementation of proposed concrete nutrient reduction measures is probably what is to
be expected given that different stakeholders’ values and interests are related to
different costs and benefi ts during implementation.
Our analyses of science-policy interactions also reveal that signifi cant challenges
still remain in terms of elaborating concrete strategies for implementing EAM ,
which we argue is needed to reach a good environmental status in terms of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea:
First, integration of various forms of knowledge relating to social, economic and
environmental risks, costs and benefi ts of eutrophication is indispensible for implementing EAM. However, despite a general awareness of this need among decisionmakers, scientists and other stakeholders, and despite recent substantial contributions
by the BalticSTERN research network, socio-economic knowledge, assessments
and advice on eutrophication are still in need of development. One set of issues far
from resolved concerns how to optimally allocate responsibilities for reducing
nutrient loads in line with BSAP and if optimal means cost-effective (by means of,
e.g. cap and trade) or something else (e.g. BalticStern 2013 ; Ahtiainen et al. 2014 ;
Tynkkynen et al. 2014 ; Wulff et al. 2014 ). Second, given the complex ecosystem
dynamics associated with eutrophication, coping with fundamental uncertainties is
2 Eutrophication and the Ecosystem Approach to Management: A Case Study…