74
4.1 Introduction
Although invasive alien species (IAS) can lead to signifi cant negative environmental impacts in the Baltic Sea, environmental risks of such biological invasions have
traditionally not attracted as much attention in the Baltic Sea as in other marine
areas. In fact, it is only recently that IAS has received signifi cant attention in formal
environmental governance arrangements in the EU and the Baltic Sea region.
The assessment and subsequent management of risks and problems associated
with biological invasions are fraught with severe challenges of ecological and
sociopolitical nature because of uncertainties with regard to the actual impacts of
biological invasions and the rather incoherent architecture of European and regional
legislation.
1 Adding to these challenges is also the fact that the biodiversity impacts
of IAS can be evaluated as either positive (e.g. introduction of new commercial fi sh
species) or negative (outcompeting of native species) depending on the species and
contexts considered. Hence, the high level of uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity linked to IAS risks and impacts, as well as the often signifi cant interrelationships
with other environmental issues like eutrophication, overfi shing and chemical pollution , may all hinder or delay the development and implementation of relevant
legislative acts and management options. It should also be underlined that biological invasions in marine ecosystems often lead to large-scale risks and consequences.
This means that the effectiveness of IAS mitigation measures is inherently dependent on cross-border and international cooperation.
This chapter describes and analyses biological invasions as examples of a relatively new and crosscutting domain of environmental governance. The main focus
is on identifying and analysing the main barriers and opportunities in the governance of Baltic Sea IAS, as well as on identifying possible ways to achieve environmental governance improvements. The study is based on a 5-year (2009–2014) case
study undertaken within the research project ‘Environmental Risk Governance of
the Baltic Sea’ (RISKGOV), where the main emphasis was on alien species (AS)
and IAS. The fi rst phase of this study relied on an extensive literature review and
database searches, both national and international. The second phase involved discussions and interviews with a number of stakeholders to further explore the issues
identifi ed as signifi cant and provide broader input and additional information .
Representatives from the following fi ve groups of stakeholders were interviewed
(19 interviews in total): offi cials representing governmental organisations (GOs)
( European Commission (EC), HELCOM, national government authorities; fi ve),
industry (International Maritime Organisation ( IMO ), port authorities; three), representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (global and regional environmental organisations; three), experts from academia (four) along with independent
experts and professionals (representatives of various institutions and organisations
1 Commission staff working document. Executive summary of the impact assessment. European
Commission, Brussels, 09.09.2013: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CE
LEX:52013SC0322&from=EN
K. Smolarz et al.
4.1 Introduction
Although invasive alien species (IAS) can lead to signifi cant negative environmental impacts in the Baltic Sea, environmental risks of such biological invasions have
traditionally not attracted as much attention in the Baltic Sea as in other marine
areas. In fact, it is only recently that IAS has received signifi cant attention in formal
environmental governance arrangements in the EU and the Baltic Sea region.
The assessment and subsequent management of risks and problems associated
with biological invasions are fraught with severe challenges of ecological and
sociopolitical nature because of uncertainties with regard to the actual impacts of
biological invasions and the rather incoherent architecture of European and regional
legislation.
1 Adding to these challenges is also the fact that the biodiversity impacts
of IAS can be evaluated as either positive (e.g. introduction of new commercial fi sh
species) or negative (outcompeting of native species) depending on the species and
contexts considered. Hence, the high level of uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity linked to IAS risks and impacts, as well as the often signifi cant interrelationships
with other environmental issues like eutrophication, overfi shing and chemical pollution , may all hinder or delay the development and implementation of relevant
legislative acts and management options. It should also be underlined that biological invasions in marine ecosystems often lead to large-scale risks and consequences.
This means that the effectiveness of IAS mitigation measures is inherently dependent on cross-border and international cooperation.
This chapter describes and analyses biological invasions as examples of a relatively new and crosscutting domain of environmental governance. The main focus
is on identifying and analysing the main barriers and opportunities in the governance of Baltic Sea IAS, as well as on identifying possible ways to achieve environmental governance improvements. The study is based on a 5-year (2009–2014) case
study undertaken within the research project ‘Environmental Risk Governance of
the Baltic Sea’ (RISKGOV), where the main emphasis was on alien species (AS)
and IAS. The fi rst phase of this study relied on an extensive literature review and
database searches, both national and international. The second phase involved discussions and interviews with a number of stakeholders to further explore the issues
identifi ed as signifi cant and provide broader input and additional information .
Representatives from the following fi ve groups of stakeholders were interviewed
(19 interviews in total): offi cials representing governmental organisations (GOs)
( European Commission (EC), HELCOM, national government authorities; fi ve),
industry (International Maritime Organisation ( IMO ), port authorities; three), representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (global and regional environmental organisations; three), experts from academia (four) along with independent
experts and professionals (representatives of various institutions and organisations
1 Commission staff working document. Executive summary of the impact assessment. European
Commission, Brussels, 09.09.2013: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CE
LEX:52013SC0322&from=EN
K. Smolarz et al.