38
a basic challenge when striving to implement EAM in the case of Baltic Sea
eutrophication governance (cf. Österblom 2010). Finally, realising ambitions of
developing integrated science-based advice on effective concrete measures will
expose different norms, principles, methodologies, assumptions, etc. in different
academic traditions and might potentially lead to increased levels of scientifi c – and
in turn, broader – disagreement , at least in the short run.
In relation to these challenges and how they have been handled by the science
system, it is interesting to note that, apart from the Baltic Nest Institute , the arenas
for consensus building in the case of eutrophication have been rather diffuse, including a variety of HELCOM groups, projects and national review groups. Therefore,
we consider (as also argued by some of our interviewed scientists) that improved
regional integration and coordination of eutrophication-related science is needed,
perhaps as a permanent independent Baltic Sea Science Panel that recurrently could
review the state of science on environmental issues in the Baltic Sea and develop
guidance on modelling and scenarios as well as on science-based approaches to better cope with knowledge integration and uncertainty. For example, linked to coping
with fundamental uncertainties in science-based advice, precautionary strategies
could be developed based on a combination of approaches and methodologies
already published in the academic literature (Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ), for example,
default factors and alternative principles for decision-making (cf. Karlsson 2005 ).
In addition, some of our interviewees were of the opinion that it would be possible
to learn from approaches for uncertainty appraisal developed by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to better cope with uncertainty in Baltic Sea
eutrophication advice. It was also argued that one of the major advantages with
IPCC’s work with scenarios and related uncertainties is the number of independent
institutions involved, which give the scenarios a certain legitimacy and credibility .
Similarly, another potential learning point from the climate discourse would be to
develop a nutrient cap and trade system for the Baltic Sea, which could be both goal
and cost-effective.
Finally, in our summation of Baltic Sea eutrophication governance, we conclude
that policy prescriptions in place are ambitious and promising and that the general
knowledge base is quite well developed. Based on this, much has happened in order
to mitigate eutrophication, but we can clearly see that several fundamental challenges remain in order to implement EAM and to ultimately reach the overall policy
objectives in, for example, BSAP and MSFD . In terms of governance structure,
there is primarily a need to improve coordination of agricultural and environmental
policies and develop science-policy interactions in line with EAM, where it is vital
that interdisciplinary integration and strategies for coping with uncertainty are
improved .
Acknowledgments We thank the co-authors of the RISKGOV research report on eutrophication,
which formed an important point of departure for this study: Britt-Marie Haahti, Eva Hedenström,
Sebastian Linke, Gunilla Reisner and Markus Wanamo. All interviewees are thanked for their
participation and valuable contributions. The work was funded by the Foundation for Baltic and
East European Studies and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (2007–
M. Karlsson et al.
a basic challenge when striving to implement EAM in the case of Baltic Sea
eutrophication governance (cf. Österblom 2010). Finally, realising ambitions of
developing integrated science-based advice on effective concrete measures will
expose different norms, principles, methodologies, assumptions, etc. in different
academic traditions and might potentially lead to increased levels of scientifi c – and
in turn, broader – disagreement , at least in the short run.
In relation to these challenges and how they have been handled by the science
system, it is interesting to note that, apart from the Baltic Nest Institute , the arenas
for consensus building in the case of eutrophication have been rather diffuse, including a variety of HELCOM groups, projects and national review groups. Therefore,
we consider (as also argued by some of our interviewed scientists) that improved
regional integration and coordination of eutrophication-related science is needed,
perhaps as a permanent independent Baltic Sea Science Panel that recurrently could
review the state of science on environmental issues in the Baltic Sea and develop
guidance on modelling and scenarios as well as on science-based approaches to better cope with knowledge integration and uncertainty. For example, linked to coping
with fundamental uncertainties in science-based advice, precautionary strategies
could be developed based on a combination of approaches and methodologies
already published in the academic literature (Udovyk and Gilek 2013 ), for example,
default factors and alternative principles for decision-making (cf. Karlsson 2005 ).
In addition, some of our interviewees were of the opinion that it would be possible
to learn from approaches for uncertainty appraisal developed by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to better cope with uncertainty in Baltic Sea
eutrophication advice. It was also argued that one of the major advantages with
IPCC’s work with scenarios and related uncertainties is the number of independent
institutions involved, which give the scenarios a certain legitimacy and credibility .
Similarly, another potential learning point from the climate discourse would be to
develop a nutrient cap and trade system for the Baltic Sea, which could be both goal
and cost-effective.
Finally, in our summation of Baltic Sea eutrophication governance, we conclude
that policy prescriptions in place are ambitious and promising and that the general
knowledge base is quite well developed. Based on this, much has happened in order
to mitigate eutrophication, but we can clearly see that several fundamental challenges remain in order to implement EAM and to ultimately reach the overall policy
objectives in, for example, BSAP and MSFD . In terms of governance structure,
there is primarily a need to improve coordination of agricultural and environmental
policies and develop science-policy interactions in line with EAM, where it is vital
that interdisciplinary integration and strategies for coping with uncertainty are
improved .
Acknowledgments We thank the co-authors of the RISKGOV research report on eutrophication,
which formed an important point of departure for this study: Britt-Marie Haahti, Eva Hedenström,
Sebastian Linke, Gunilla Reisner and Markus Wanamo. All interviewees are thanked for their
participation and valuable contributions. The work was funded by the Foundation for Baltic and
East European Studies and the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (2007–
M. Karlsson et al.