This edited volume presents a comprehensive and coherent interdisciplinary analysis of challenges and possibilities for sustainable governance of the Baltic Sea ecosystem by combining knowledge and approaches from natural and social sciences. Focusing on the Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM) and associated multi-level, multi-sector and multi-actor challenges, the book provides up-to-date descriptions and analyses of environmental governance structures and processes at the macro-regional Baltic Sea level. Organised in two parts, Part 1 presents in-depth case studies of environmental governance practices and challenges linked to five key environmental problems - eutrophication, chemical pollution, overfishing, oil discharges and invasive species. Part 2 analyses and compares governance challenges and opportunities across the five case studies, focusing on governance structures and EAM implementation, knowledge integration and science support, as well as stakeholder communication and participation. Based on these cross-case comparisons, this book also draws a set of general conclusions on possible ways of improving the governance of the Baltic Sea by promoting what are identified as vital functions of environmental governance: coordination, integration, interdisciplinarity, precaution, deliberation, communication and adaptability.

The Baltic Sea ecosystem is subject to a wide array of societal pressures and associated environmental risks (e.g. eutrophication, oil discharges, chemical pollution, overfishing and invasive alien species). Despite several years of substantial efforts by state and non-state actors, it is still highly unlikely that the regionally agreed environmental objectives of reaching “good environmental status” by 2021 in the HELCOM BSAP (Baltic Sea Action Plan) and by 2020 in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) will be met. This chapter identifies key research topics, as well as presents analytical perspectives for analysing the gap between knowledge and action in Baltic Sea environmental governance. It does so by outlining important trends and key challenges associated with Baltic Sea environmental governance, as well as by summarising the scope and results of individual chapters of this interdisciplinary volume. The analysis reveals the development of increasingly complex governance arrangements and the ongoing implementation of the holistic Ecosystem Approach to Management, as two general trends that together contribute to three key challenges associated with (1) regional and cross - sectoral coordination and collaboration, (2) coping with complexity and uncertainty in science-policy interactions and (3) developing communication and knowledge sharing among stakeholder groups. Furthermore, to facilitate analysis of environmental governance opportunities and obstacles both within and across specific environmental issues, this chapter reviews the scientific literature to pinpoint key research issues and questions linked to the identified governance challenges.

This study investigates if and how present institutional structures and interactions between scientific assessment and environmental management are sufficient for implementing the ecosystem approach to management (EAM) in the case of Baltic Sea eutrophication. Concerning governance structures, a number of institutions and policies focus on issues relating to eutrophication. In many cases, the policies are mutually supportive rather than contradictory, as seen, for example, in the case of the mutually supportive BSAP and MSFD. The opposite is true, however, when it comes to the linkages with some other policy areas, in particular regarding agricultural policy, where the EU CAP subsidises intensive agriculture with at best minor consideration of environmental objectives, thereby undermining EAM. Enhanced policy coherence and stricter policies on concrete measures to combat eutrophication seem well needed in order to reach stated environmental objectives.  When it comes to assessment-management interactions, the science- policy interface has worked well in periods, but the more specific that policies have become, for example, in the BSAP case, the more question marks have been raised about science by affected stakeholders. At present, outright controversies exist, and EAM is far from realised in eutrophication policy in the Baltic Sea region. Besides coping with remaining uncertainties by improving the knowledge on problems and solutions– not least in terms of the socio-economic impacts of eutrophication – it may therefore be valuable to develop venues for improved stakeholder participation.

This study zooms in on public governance in the Baltic Sea region of three generations of notorious hazardous substances, namely, PCBs, PBDEs and PFOS/PFOA. Following regulation, PCB concentrations in the Baltic Sea have decreased substantially although they are still above pre-industrial levels. PBDE levels have also decreased in some places, but they too are well above targeted levels, whereas the situation for PFOS and in particular for PFOA has hardly improved at all. In the case of PCBs, while comprehensive measures took long to implement, initial preventive measures were taken early based on the precautionary principle. This contrasts with the cases of PBDEs, PFOS and PFOA, where the burden of proof on policy-makers has been high and hence caused severe delays in policymaking. There has, however, generally been a positive interplay in all three cases between the EU, which has legislated, and HELCOM, which has taken the role of concept and agenda setting. While environment-oriented policies, such as the Ecosystem Approach to Management under MSFD and BSAP, have grown in importance over time, polluter-oriented chemical legislation has been more important when it comes to final decision-making. Nevertheless, the general response has been reactive rather than proactive, and there is no indication that society responds faster today than in the past, at least not given the fact that awareness, experience and knowledge are greater today than a few decades back. Based on that insight, the article discusses various options for improving governance.

This chapter focuses on forms of and challenges for risk communication within regional environmental governance, based on an analysis of five environmental risks in the Baltic Sea – marine oil transportation, chemicals, overfishing, eutrophication and alien species. We address questions about how risks are framed and communicated and also analyse the role of communication in the governance process. Our main focus is on risk communication with the public (e.g. existing institutional arrangements and procedures of risk communication), but we also relate this analysis to discussions on communication with a broad range of actors and issues of stakeholder participation and communication. In the study we have identified some examples of relatively well-working risk communication with parts of the organised public in the Baltic Sea region (BSR), such as in fisheries or eutrophication, but also a number of different barriers and obstacles. Our key result from this study is that BSR consists of many national institutions for risk communication, but that there are hardly any centralised institutions for risk communication activities relating to environmental governance in the region. Another key conclusion is that public risk communication in this array of cross-national environmental risks is restricted mainly to (one-way) information. Against this backdrop and from our empirical and theoretical knowledge of risk communication and the role of the public, we finally suggest some ways for improvement.

This chapter investigates and compares the interactions between science and policy (risk assessments and risk management) in five cases of environmental governance of the Baltic Sea: eutrophication, fisheries, invasive alien species, chemical pollution and oil discharges. An efficient interplay between science and policy is important for successful environmental governance, which applies particularly to the Baltic Sea where all five risks pose serious threats to environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. We use science-policy theory and an analytical framework based on a categorisation of relevant management responses linked to different states of incomplete knowledge (risk, uncertainty, ambiguity, ignorance) to investigate two main characteristics of science-policy interfaces: (1) organisational structures and (2) procedural aspects of managing scientific uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements. The analyses reveal differences and similarities in institutional and organisational designs of the respective assessment-management interactions, as well as in terms of how scientific uncertainties, stakeholder disagreements and socio-political ambiguities are addressed. All the five science-policy interfaces expose science-based management approaches that commonly are not able to cope sufficiently well with the complexities, uncertainties and ambiguities at hand. Based on our cross-case analyses, we conclude by recommending five key aspects that need to be addressed to improve science-policy interactions in Baltic Sea environmental governance: (1) more adaptive organisational structures in terms of time, context and place dependency, (2) increased knowledge integrations, (3) a more careful consideration of stakeholder participation and deliberation, (4) better management of uncertainty and disagreements and (5) increased transparency and reflection in the communication of science-policy processes.

Governing marine environments is a highly complex and challenging enterprise. This applies particularly to the heavily exploited Baltic Sea for which despite extensive governance arrangements and a substantial scientific knowledge base, it is unlikely that the policy objective of ‘good environmental status’ is reached. Based on a review of governance arrangements linked to five large-scale environmental issues (eutrophication, overfishing, invasive alien species, chemical pollution and oil spills from shipping), this chapter aims to identify pathways and concrete ideas for institutional reform that may improve goal fulfilment. The results show that governance challenges differ substantially between environmental issues, implying a need for case-specific management reforms. For example, coping with extreme uncertainty is a key challenge in the chemical pollution case, whereas it seems more pertinent in the eutrophication case to address the complexity of nutrient pollution sources by adapting objectives and measures amongst sectoral policies to be in line with environmental ones. Furthermore, cross-case comparisons reveal a set of common vital functions (i.e. coordination, integration, interdisciplinarity, precaution, deliberation, communication and adaptability) that are needed in order to facilitate effective and efficient environmental governance in the long term. To promote these functions in Baltic Sea environmental governance, the chapter suggests pathways and institutional reforms aimed at improving multilevel and multisectoral integration, science-policy interactions and stakeholder participation. To further develop these ideas, it is proposed amongst other things that priority is given to setting up an international ‘Baltic Sea Policy Review Mechanism’, formed by cross-body and cross-stakeholder participation.

This chapter analyses the governance structures linked to the marine environment of the Baltic Sea. The purpose is to assess whether current developments of the governance structures have a potential to take into account requirements of an Ecosystem Approach to Management (EAM). We use the concept of reflexive governance to understand key components and weaknesses in contemporary governance modes, as well as to elaborate on possible pathways towards a governance mode more aligned with EAM. The reflexive governance framework highlights three elements: (1) acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity; (2) a holistic approach in terms of scales, sectors and actors; and (3) acknowledgement of path dependency and incremental policy-making. Our analysis is based on a comparative case study approach, including analysis of the governance in five environmental risk areas: chemical pollution, overfishing, eutrophication, invasive alien species and pollution from shipping. The chapter highlights an existing governance mode that is ill-equipped to deal with the complexity of environmental problems in a holistic manner, with systematic attention to uncertainty, plurality of values, ambiguity and limited knowledge, while also pointing at important recent cognitive and institutional developments that can favour pathways towards reflexive governance and consequently EAM.