sh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 19 of 19
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Andrén, Thomas
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Andrén, Elinor
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Zhang, Rui
    Xiamen University, China.
    Baltic Sea Basin Paleoenvironment: paleoenvironmental evolution of the Baltic Sea Basin through the last glacial cycle2014Report (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Andrén, Thomas
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Jørgensen, B. B.
    Aarhus Universit, Denmark.
    Cotterill, C.
    British Geological Survey, UK.
    Baltic Sea Basin Paleoenvironment: paleoenvironmental evolution of the Baltic Sea Basin through the last glacial cycle2012Report (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Andrén, Thomas
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Jørgensen, Bo Barker
    Cotterill, Carol
    Green, Sophie
    Andrén, Elinor
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Baltic Sea Basin Paleoenvironment: Expedition 347 of the mission-specific drilling platform  from and to Kiel, Germany Sites M0059–M0067  12 September–1 November 20132015Report (Other academic)
  • 4.
    Boström, Magnus
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Börjeson, Natasja
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Jönsson, Anna Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Culture and Communication, Media and Communication Studies.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Towards responsible procurement in relation to chemical risks in textiles?: Findings from an interview study2011Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    In the present study, we ask whether and how different organizations work with sustainable procurement and how this work relates to the complexity of the product chain. We have chosen to focus on chemical risks in relation to textiles – an issue that increasingly is becoming part of the public discourse and a target for journalists. In the case of textiles, the product chain from raw material to consumption often involves a great number of production steps, sub-contractors and users, often on a global scale. Sustainable management of the supply chain would improve health, quality of life, and labour conditions, for instance in the areas and factories in developing countries where production and processing often take place. However, such management faces great difficulties and challenges in terms of capabilities, knowledge, communication, and policy instruments. These difficulties are related to high uncertainties and other problems that in turn are related to the high complexity of global product chains. The objective of the present report is to gain insights into the opportunities and challenges that private and public organizations face regarding the development of responsible procurement in relation to a complex and uncertain issue. The report focuses on chemicals in textiles and uses a qualitative methodology with semi-structured interviews. Key elements of a pro-active, responsible procurement strategy are defined in the report and include criteria such as using a preventive, systematic, responsive, integrative, and reflective approach. The analysis includes the following topics: (i) priorities and knowledge, (ii) communicative strategies, (iii) policy instruments, (iv) monitoring and trust in relation to suppliers. The results show a fairly modest level of organizational responsibility, although it is possible to observe an initial positive development among the cases investigated. The report ends by suggesting a number of topics that require further investigation.

  • 5.
    Boström, Magnus
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science. Örebro universitet.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, Centre for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES).
    Jönsson, Anna Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Culture and Education, Media and Communication Studies.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    IKEA and the Responsible Governance of Supply Chains: IKEA’s work on chemicals in textiles2013Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report focuses on IKEA’s management and communication surrounding sustainability in general and chemical risks specifically. IKEA’s work is analysed in relation to theoretical concepts around responsibility, supply chain, and governance . The report focuses on IKEA’s visions and organizational structures, its policy instruments to deal with chemical risks, supplier-relations and communication and learning. The study is based on previous scholarly literature, analyses of relevant documents, a field visit at a few of IKEA’s suppliers in southern India, as well as interviews with staff working at IKEA in Sweden. The report focuses on IKEA’s systems and processes for dealing with chemical risks, and not on the implementation of such measures in quantitative terms.

  • 6. Dreyer, Marion
    et al.
    Sellke, Piet
    Boström, Magnus
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Jönsson, Anna-Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Culture and Communication, Media and Communication Studies.
    Structures and processes of stakeholder and public communication on Baltic Seaenvironmental risks: RISKGOV Deliverable 102011Report (Other academic)
  • 7. Einarsson, Peter
    Policy interventions for ecological recycling agriculture: available options for governments in the Baltic Sea region2012Report (Other academic)
  • 8.
    Ekström, Linda
    et al.
    Södertörn University.
    Loftsson, Elfar
    Södertörn University, Institutionen för ekonomi och samhälle, Political science.
    Norling, Sofia
    Södertörn University, Department of Society and History, Institute of Contemporary History.
    Strandskyddsproblematiken på Ornö: En kritisk diskussion kring miljöpolitisk decentralisering2004Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Ofta hävdas att de lokala, direkt berörda parterna är mest lämpade att fatta beslut i miljöfrågor. I denna pilotstudie sätts det ifråga. En undersökning presenteras av hur lagen om strandskydd fungerar på kommunal nivå, mer specifikt dess tillämpning i Haninge kommun och skärgårdsön Ornö.

  • 9.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Environmental Risk Governance of the Baltic Sea: RISKGOV Final report : Deliverable 122012Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Environmental risk governance in the Baltic Sea area is still unable to fully support implementation of the ecosystem approach to management. Hence, the aims of the international RISKGOV project were: 1) to improve our understanding of environmental risk governance and its challenges in the Baltic Sea; 2) to suggest possible avenues for improvement.

    These aims were addressed by integrating social and natural science approaches on five strategically selected environmental risks (eutrophication, overfishing, invasive species, chemical pollution and oil discharges).

    The findings, recommendations and dissemination products of RISKGOV are described in detail in the Final report (http://www.sh.se/riskgov). Researchers from Södertörn University were involved in all case studies and cross-case comparisons. In summary, RISKGOV concludes that it is necessary to improve the robustness and responsiveness of governance practices to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Specifically, RISKGOV recommends that: (i) Governance structures need to move towards more reflexive governance by improving regulatory coordination, cross sector collaboration, and interaction space for reflexivity. This is, for example, exemplified by increased interactions between HELCOM and the EU aiming at the combination of mandatory regulation and voluntary agreements; (ii) Assessment-management interactions require improvements e.g. relating to the regional and interdisciplinary knowledge-base, stakeholder participation and coping with scientific uncertainty and disagreement; (iii) Stakeholder participation and communication require improvements in terms of a more integrated system of stakeholder input possibly via an expansion of HELCOM’s stakeholder involvement policy and enhanced efforts to communicate environmental issues to the general public. Implications of these general recommendations for specific actors and stakeholders were analysed and developed through thematic roundtable discussions.

  • 10.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    RISKGOV – Environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea2011Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 11.
    Gilek, Michael
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Linke, Sebastian
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Lundberg, Cecilia
    Åbo Akademi, Finland.
    Smolarz, Katarzyna
    Södertörn University, Centre for Baltic and East European Studies (CBEES).
    Lemke, Paulina
    Gdansk University, Poland.
    Interactions between risk assessment and risk management for environmental risks in the Baltic Sea: RISKGOV Deliverable 92011Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report has been produced within the interdisciplinary RISKGOV project with the overall aim of comparing risk assessment – risk management interactions connected with five severe Baltic Sea environmental risks (eutrophication, overfishing, invasive species, chemical pollution and oil discharges linked to marine transports).

    Specifically, we compare three major aspects connected with assessment  – management interactions and, based on this analysis, suggest possible routes for improving interaction between science-based advice and environmental (risk) management:

    1. Organisational structure of the risk assessment activities and the generation, selection and implementation of management options.
    2. The management of scientific uncertainties and disagreements.
    3. Implementation of the ecosystem approach to management (EAM) and modes of ‘good governance’.

    In order to understand these aspects we started by describing and analysing the characteristics of the five risk cases. This revealed substantial differences in terms of sources, effects and complexities (in terms of scientific uncertainty and socio-political ambiguity). For example, chemical risks are associated with great uncertainty and oil spill with much lower; fisheries relate to very high socio-political ambiguity, whereas invasive species show the opposite nature and oil spill fit with more traditional risk parameters. Our analysis also revealed a great variation in the societal risk responses, which far from always seems rational in relation to the risk characteristics.

    When it comes to the organisational structures, we can conclude that different forms of institutions and institutional arrangements and relations have evolved over time in the various cases, for instance relatively well-formalised in the overfishing case, and rather informal for combating eutrophication. Similarly, we see different forms of expert dependencies. In the overfishing case there are institutionalised formal links between e.g. ICES and the EU Commission and the historic path-dependency is quite strong, thereby causing institutional inertia, even though the development of Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) such as the Baltic RAC are gradually changing the picture. In relation to many other environmental risk cases (e.g. eutrophication and chemicals) HELCOM provides a regional basis for assessment and management (although implementation of management recommendations have often proved complex). Still, assessment-management interactions seem more developed and better organised in the overfishing case, even though it is obvious that the last link, the political decision-making on quotas, has deviated substantially from the science-based advice, thereby opening for continued overfishing. Similarly, well-developed institutions seem to allow for improved deliberative processes for fisheries, including improved analysis of socio-economic dimensions, which we cannot find to the same extent for e.g. chemicals, eutrophication and invasive species.

    The assessment and management responses we see to the studied risks do not seem to be based on any thorough analysis of the specific risk characteristics, or on the suitability of different overall strategies (e.g. traditional science-based assessment, precautionary, deliberative). Instead, all studied assessment-management interactions can be classified as being built primarily on traditional science-based assessment of risks. Of course, we see elements of for example precaution in e.g. the chemicals case, and deliberation in the fish case, and the inclusion of the EAM as a starting point for assessment exercises and management decisions is becoming more common, but overall this happens only partially and infrequently.

    Thus, to summarise, we conclude that there are substantial differences among environmental risks in relation to, for example, complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity, and we argue that it is important to maintain a balance between ideals of holistic approaches such as EAM and context dependent requirements of various management objectives, environmental risks and sectors. For example, high levels of uncertainty (e.g. chemical pollution) and ambiguity (e.g. overfishing) can be assumed to require assessment-management approaches focussed on precaution and participatory deliberation, respectively.

    Furthermore, our analysis identifies six key issues and challenges that, if adequately addressed, may improve assessment-management interactions and facilitate the implementation of the ecosystem approach to management.

    1. We see a need to further develop the regional and ecosystem basis of assessment-management interactions in terms of addressing prioritised knowledge gaps, as well as developing regional knowledge management and monitoring to strengthen regionally-based scientific advice.

    2. Integration of various forms of scientific knowledge is currently rather undeveloped in assessment and scientific advice, which reduces possibilities of addressing also the social dimension of sustainable development as well as possibilities of identifying and reducing ‘blind spots’.

    3. Stakeholder participation requires more consideration since incorporation of practitioner and local knowledge in risk assessments as well as stakeholder deliberation in risk management often are vital for the successful implementation of the ecosystem approach to management.

    4. We identify substantial room for improvements linked to coping with scientific uncertainty and disagreement in both risk assessment and risk management. We conclude that there in fact are examples of science-based precautionary approaches and methods, but that a comprehensive and coherent strategy for addressing uncertainty is often lacking.

    5. Interdependencies among environmental risk issues need to be more specifically addressed than today. Climate change will, for example, influence both the outcome of risk assessments as well as the possibilities for successful management in all the studied environmental risk cases.

    6. Despite a commonly expressed idea of a clear separation between assessment and management, the studied science-policy interactions are in general rather diffuse and politicised. This lack of transparency about how these interactions evolve and are constructed may mislead political decision makers and the public and thus potentially hamper management progress.

  • 12.
    Hammer, Monica
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Towards improved environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: RISKGOV Deliverable 112012Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Moving towards sustainable ecosystem governance practices is potentially a complex and time consuming endeavour. The RISKGOV project identified three main governance challenges linked to implementing an ecosystem approach to management in the medium to long term time span (i.e. years to decades), that, if adequately addressed by actors and stakeholders, could help improve the governance of environmental problems and risks in the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Firstly, fostering a move towards reflexive and adaptive governance structures and processes by improving regulatory coordination, cross sector collaboration and forming spaces for interaction and dialogue. Secondly, strengthening the regional and ecosystem basis of knowledge generation and management is needed, including integration of various forms of scientific knowledge, stakeholder input, and increased attention to interdependencies among environmental problems and risks to better address uncertainties and disagreements. Thirdly, to develop a more integrated system of stakeholder input and communication, e.g. in the form of a “regional marine advisory council”, to face issues of inclusiveness, create a common concern for the Baltic ecosystem, improve the motivation and capacity, and improve coordination across scales and sectors.

  • 13.
    Hassler, Björn
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Coping and adaptation in socio-ecological problem structures: Towards an integrated framework for analyzing trans-boundary environmental problems in marine settings2015Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The literature on governance of socio-ecological systems has been growing fast during the last one or two decades. However, sound theoretical underpinnings to these systems have not been sufficiently articulated and tied to existing theory, it is argued in this working paper. To address this shortcoming, this paper aims to elaborate on how the theoretical constructs  problem structure, collective choice theory and adaptive governance can be brought together to form a coherent analytical framework for analyzing trans-boundary environmental problems in marine settings. The argument that collective action problematiques may inhibit successful adaptation to environmental change among sovereign states is fundamental to this model. Given that governments tend to prefer national coping strategies where expected national rather than joint benefits are maximized, mutually beneficial cooperation often does not evolve and regional adaptation turn out piecemeal. It is concluded that in order to improve trans-national environmental governance, a better understanding of underlying drivers and countries’ incentives to take action is a necessary prerequisite.

  • 14.
    Hassler, Björn
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Boström, Magnus
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Grönholm, Sam
    Åbo University.
    Kern, Kristine
    Environmental risk governance in the Baltic Sea - A comparison between five key areas: Deliverable number 82011Report (Other academic)
  • 15.
    Hassler, Björn
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Söderström, Sara
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Leposa, Neva
    Marine oil transportations in the Baltic Sea area: Deliverable number 62010Report (Other academic)
  • 16.
    Lidberg, Maria
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Hantering av miljö- och hälsorisker i textila produktkedjor: En fallstudie av Stockholms läns landsting2011Report (Other academic)
  • 17.
    Saunders, Fred P.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    A Discussion of the Debates Underpinning Agri-Environmental Schemes as a form of Payment for Ecological Services2015Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Payments for Ecological Services (PES) has rapidly emerged around the world as a key environmental governance approach. This paper is concerned with Agricultural Environmental Schemes (AES) as a particular form of PES to improve the environmental performance of agriculture particularly in relation to water quality in Sweden. Win-win descriptions prevail in AES policy discourse to describe the simultaneous achievement of environmental goals and economic outcomes for farmers. AES are underpinned by an instrumental assumption that farmer behaviour can be influenced towards adopting better environmental practice by providing monetary incentives (or at least compensation). This paper has touched on a number of contentions in the PES literature, including: doubts about how well standardised PES schemes link with local conditions; how and whether PES schemes can engender local innovation; procedural and distributive equity concerns; claims that monetary incentives may ‘crowd out’ socially derived sources of motivation (local norms); and doubts about whether PES schemes, disembedded from local institutions, can deliver ‘sufficient’ environmental behavioural change. Given the relatively recent emergence of AES schemes, it is important that we learn more from the experience of implementation. Critically oriented empirically-based research then has the capacity to work as a circuit breaker between ideologically driven arguments that side either for or against the use of market mechanisms, such as AES for environmental governance. Such insights may be useful to help focus research on farmer engagement with AES that subjects it to greater empirical scrutiny and validation.

  • 18.
    Saunders, Fred P.
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Gee, Kira
    Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Zentrum für Material-und Küstenforschung GmbH.
    Göke, Cordula
    Aarhus University.
    Hassler, Björn
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Lenninger, Paula
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Luttmann, Anne
    Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde.
    Morf, Andrea
    Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment.
    Piwowarczyk, Joanna
    Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
    Schiele, Kerstin
    Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde.
    Stalmokaite, Igne
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Strand, Helena
    Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment.
    Tafon, Ralph
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Zaucha, Jacek
    Maritime Institute in Gdansk.
    BALTSPACE Deliverable: D1.2: Final Guidance Document on Analysing Possibilities and Challenges for MSP Integration2016Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report makes a case for examining the role of integration and its links to how

    sustainable development is variably expressed in different marine spatial planning (MSP)

    contexts. The aim of the report is to refine an analytical approach to examine integration

    in MSP in the Baltic Sea through consideration of preliminary empirical results from a

    broad range of case studies. MSP is conceptualised here as a governance platform for

    improving processes to enable political decision-making with the aim to achieve

    sustainable development of marine space. Integration is universally espoused as a

    means to address a variety of challenges closely related to MSP’s sustainable

    development ambitions, such as supporting inter-sectoral decision-making, stakeholder

    engagement and cross-border interaction, but its role, value and implementation in MSP

    has not been examined in any empirical detail. Although increased integration may well

    have positive effects on MSP processes and outcomes, in some instances, the contrary

    might also be the case. With these thoughts in mind, this report argues that we need to

    analyse integration as a multidimensional concept in MSP processes and outcomes.

    Based on understandings of integration derived from MSP experience and concepts in the

    broader social science literature, an analytical framework is developed to examine MSP

    practice in the Baltic Sea. Integration is conceptualised as including

    transboundary/cross-border, policy/sectoral, stakeholder and knowledge dimensions.

    Despite common requirements under the European Union MSP Directive and policies,

    national jurisdictions are likely to adopt MSP differently, which has implications for the

    role integration is likely to play in national and transnational MSP practice. Drawing on

    empirical data derived from national MSP studies, stakeholder dialogue forums and

    preliminary interviews with stakeholders the analytical framework is applied to examine

    how particular integration challenges play out in both national and transnational marine

    space across the Baltic Sea Region. The analytical framework is then used to structure

    an examination of several case studies from different parts of the Baltic Sea Region.

    Based on consideration of the empirical work and an analyses of previous experiences in

    science and practice we then propose some revisions to the initial analytical framework

    presented earlier. The revised analytical framework, while capturing the integration

    dimensions mentioned earlier, also includes consideration of the following aspects of

    integration: how ‘balance’ between sustainable development dimensions is exercised;

    the character of cross-boundary interactions; and temporal dynamics. Instead of a

    conclusion, short think-pieces are presented to capture the main insights of the report,

    which could be used to aid the examination of integration in MSP in other MSP contexts,

    beyond the Baltic Sea.

  • 19.
    Udovyk, Oksana
    et al.
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Rabilloud, Louise
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Gilek, Michael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Karlsson, Mikael
    Södertörn University, School of Life Sciences, Environmental science.
    Hazardous substances: a case study of environmental risk governance in the Baltic Sea region2010Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This report aims to describe and analyse the structures and processes that shape risk governance of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea area and, based on this, discuss conditions and opportunities that could improve chemical risk governance. With this purpose in mind we have analysed the risk governance of hazardous chemicals along three dimensions and Work Packages (WP): governance structures (WP 1), risk assessment-risk management interactions (WP 2) and stakeholder communication (WP 3). The report is an initial outcome of the RISKGOV project, in which risk governance in various areas eventually will be compared in order to gain new insights on environmental risk governance and to extract policy-relevant advise on how to better deal with environmental risks in the Baltic Sea context.

     

    The report is based on a study of key documents treating policies and risks, 22 semi-structured in-depth interviews with stakeholders conducted in the period February–October 2010, as well as participatory observations at scientific conferences and stakeholder meetings.

    WP 1 identifies the most important risk governance structures, and maps actors and regulations. In particular, it is concluded that development at the EU and HELCOM level are of main importance for the management of chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. Thus, actors within the EU and HELCOM, as well as regulations within EU – most notably the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the REACH regulation – and regulations and recommendations dealt with by HELCOM – in particular the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) – were identified as crucial for further analyses in WP 2 and WP 3. Although we recognise the importance and the substantial improvements that have been made in chemical regulation within the EU and HELCOM, these developments are not sufficient in order to meet key objective at hand, nor do they adequately manage relations with Russia. WP 1 concludes that, although there are numerous of national and international regulations creating a massive web of regulations, existing chemical regulation and informal governance structures are very far from covering all existing chemical risks (especially new chemicals and mixtures of chemicals) and to allow for a sufficient extent of safety. Care must be taken in the development of new regulations to promote synergies and data exchange rather than causing further barriers, overlaps and conflicts that could reduce the efficiency. Innovative policy developments, as well as improved international collaboration, are therefore needed, which will be placed in focus in further studies within the RISKGOV project.

    WP 2 focuses on an in-depth understanding of the interactions between risk assessment and risk management of chemicals. The main assessment and management activities in the Baltic Sea region are identified and analysed. It is concluded that assessments commonly are based on a rather technocratic separation of assessment and management activities (with often unclear strategies for bringing these activities together in decision-making). Assessments also generally suffer from lack of data, insufficient harmonisation of methodology, as well as unclear strategies for assessing uncertainties and adjusted communication of assessment results. Consequently, assessments would benefit greatly from more harmonised assessment methodologies, not least for chemical mixtures, ecological effects as well as methods for integrating various lines of evidence. Both assessment and management might benefit from increased stakeholder participation. Furthermore, we have analysed risk assessment and management interactions through the prisms of uncertainty and the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). These aspects have become top challenges for the assessment and management of chemical risks as well as for coping with science-policy interactions connected with the governance of chemical risks. We conclude that the enormous knowledge gap (for most chemicals, for the risks of chemical mixtures, for ecosystem-specific risks etc) need to be addressed by combining increased efforts on data and knowledge production with better ways of assessing, communicating and managing uncertainty. Hence, a main question is how much evidence is needed for motivating decision-making on risk reduction. This is a policy-related issue, not a scientific one. However, science does need to develop and implement improved methodology for assessing and communicating uncertainty to relevant stakeholders. On the management side, the precautionary principle is increasingly stipulated for coping with uncertainty. In spite of that, there is no consensus on the exact implementation of the principle in practice, and regulations such as REACH, the WFD, the MSFD and the BSAP ought to be developed on this point. Risk reduction is needed and motivated even, or even particularly, under uncertainty. Looking at the EAM, the approach is clearly receiving increase attention (e.g. in the BSAP and the MSFD), but only partially in the field of chemical regulation and concrete measures. So far, it is therefore not certain that the EAM will substantially improve risk management in cases of high uncertainty. On the contrary, requirements on implementation of the EAM may stall measures and increase complexity. These initial insights will be further developed in coming RISKGOV publications.

    WP 3 describes and analyses how risks of hazardous chemicals are framed by key actors and stakeholders in the Baltic Sea region, such as governments, agencies, regionally inter-governmental agencies such as HELCOM, economic actors, academia, and civil society. It is shown that different actors have different ways of framing the risk of chemicals in the Baltic Sea. For example, differences were observed along a gradient spanning from framing chemicals and chemical products as basically useful for society, to framing chemicals as substantial threats to the environment and human health. Most interviewed stakeholders could be placed somewhere in the middle of this gradient between benefit and cost. This is reflected in the dominant opinions expressed on required general management approaches, which do not fundamentally question abundant production of chemicals, but rather suggest a focus on managing chemicals with proven hazardous properties, thus tilting towards a market rather than an environmental starting point. This view on chemical risk management is rather surprising given the major uncertainties and lack of data described in WP 2. In light of this we propose that the management of chemicals might benefit from a shift towards seeing quality of life as based on sufficiency of chemicals rather than on (over)-abundance of them. Many of the interviewed stakeholders (e.g. politicians, journalists and NGO staff) also expressed a surprising lack of interest in the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals in the Baltic Sea region. If concern mostly expressed was health risks of chemicals. It is also clear that besides some NGOs and other stakeholders, quite few have a primary focus on taking initiatives for improving the management of chemicals, something that is a problem given the common political ambitions to increase participation in connection with implementation of the EAM. WP 3 also analyses existing institutional arrangements for and procedures of risk communication at the regional Baltic Sea level. Clearly, communication between the EU and Russia is still in need of improvement, as is two-way communications and cooperation between stakeholders, as well as between actors connected with risk assessment and risk management and the general public. For example, in those (rare) cases when scientific information about chemicals does exist, it is not well communicated among knowledge producers and stakeholders, and current scientific assessment activities seldom relate directly to concerns of stakeholders or the public.

     

    In conclusion our initial analysis and conclusions show that risks of chemicals are rather dealt with by traditional risk-based governmental strategies, than by broad environmental governance, based on precaution and the ecosystem approach to management. Furthermore, there are no clear strategies or guidelines on how to cope with uncertainty in assessment and management. As a result, even though there is a growing scientific capacity to develop new chemicals, there is at present no well functioning system for their safe management. We will address these challenges further in future RISKGOV publications.

1 - 19 of 19
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf