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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

Currently, European marine governance seems to be undergoing significant changes. From having been based largely on scientific expert knowledge, restricted risk assessments and governmental regulation, we are now witnessing a management turn towards holistic perspectives, the inclusion of stakeholders, adaptive governance, and co-production of knowledge—the so-called ecosystem approach to management (EAM). By using the Baltic Sea as an example of these changes, we have taken a closer look at the 2007 Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) of the Helsinki Commission and the recent organizational changes within the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Informed by a Reflexive Governance perspective, the primary objective has been to analyse the extent to which institutional preconditions for using an EAM exist in these two cases. Our results show that even though the BSAP has been designed with an EAM approach as its core philosophy, existing implementation, financing, monitoring, and enforcement structures make it unlikely that actual management modes will change significantly in the near feature. Changes in the ICES have occurred as a result of an internal restructuring process characterized by integrative and learning elements. It has been shown that adopting a broad social science perspective and a reflexive governance viewpoint can elucidate how factors such as inadequate institutional change, limited cooperation over sector borders, and adjustment problems caused by path dependency can threaten the successful turn towards the EAM in marine governance.

This report presents the results of a web survey distributed to stakeholders in the Baltic Sea marine sector regarding environmental communication on air pollution from shipping. The survey was carried out in the spring and summer of 2012. Drawing on the literature on risk communication and environmental governance, the main focus was placed on so-called communication barriers, that is, possible hindrances to effective communication among stakeholders on how to reduce air pollution without threatening sector competitiveness. The results show that although there is a dense networking among stakeholders in this sector, there is a demand for improvements in communication in (a) exploratory phases among broad groups of stakeholders and (b) operational phases among selected groups of e.g. business and research teams. To facilitate the emergence of such improved communication, regional organizations such as HELCOM and EU could play important roles. Furthermore, it is shown that there is a perceived need among many stakehold­ers to step up the involvement of certain stakeholders, for example fuel companies, in collabora­tion on how to reduce pollution from shipping in cost-efficient ways. Finally, the results show that although continuous improvements of international regulation is a vital part of the governance of the marine sector, compliance will suffer if operators’ incentives are too strong in favor of not con­tributing to reduced pollution levels. Therefore, there is a strong need for innovative thinking on how to design such incentive schemes, not the least in relation to the continued implementation of Baltic Sea SECA and NECA as well as of the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

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 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.

Gapet är stort mellan miljömål och miljötillstånd i Östersjön. De omfattande insatser som görs av offentliga institutioner, näringsliv och allmänhet räcker inte. Samtidigt finns ett stort och växande engagemang från många politiker, företagare och enskilda för att stärka havsmiljöarbetet. När vi nu summerar ett större treårigt forskningsprojekt finner vi viktiga ledtrådar till vägar som kan leda till en förbättrad situation.

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 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.

Miljöproblemen i Östersjön är allvarliga, och kunskapen om exakt vilka risker de innebär är omdebatterad. I ett forskningsprojekt har vi kartlagt hur miljöriskerna bedöms och hanteras idag, och konstaterar att det finns ett behov av att den traditionella riskbedömningen kompletteras med ett större mått av försiktighet och ett ökat deltagande av samhällets olika aktörer.

In this thesis, I examine knowledge production and science-policy interaction associated with the management of chemical substances in the Baltic Sea under conditions of uncertainty and complexity. The thesis is primarily based on a qualitative analysis of policy documents and reports produced by the European Union (EU), the Helsinki Commission, the Swedish Chemicals Agency, and Gothenburg municipality, as well as 30 semi-structured interviews with scientific experts, policy makers, and government officials with knowledge and working experience in the relevant policy arenas.

I identify and examine key challenges of science-policy interaction associated with the management of chemical substances in the Baltic Sea, such as lack of data, uncertainty, and complexity (Article I). I further argue that the current model of science-policy interaction fails to adequately handle and account for these challenges (e.g. uncertainty in Article II).

Scientists and policy makers have made substantial (and sometimes successful) efforts to understand and counteract negative environmental trends in the Baltic Sea. However, on the basis of this empirical analysis, I conclude that the uncertainties tied to the complex chemical risks in the Baltic Sea region are too large and multifaceted to be adequately addressed by the “modern science-policy model” underpinning most contemporary risk assessments. Linked to this analysis, I identify several possible ways to improve the situation, for example new tools and methods for handling uncertainty as well as alternative models for science-policy interaction.

As a consequence, I explore the potential of alternative models of science-policy interaction, giving particular attention to the participatory model and the associated idea of post-normal science. The results highlight the substantial amount of rhetoric in EU sources about recommending wider public involvement in policies, but also reveal that there is a different situation in practice. The introduction of more radical approaches (such as post-normal science) to knowledge co-production and participation would require epistemological, institutional, and constitutional changes that are not feasible in the foreseeable future – at least for the case of chemical substances (Article III).

Improvements (methodological, institutional and so on) in the current modern model of science-policy interaction are just as important as the development of alternative modes of science-policy interaction (Article IV). However, the general conclusion of this thesis is that there is a need to rethink current science-policy interaction and in the process “break through” the widespread institutional denial of irreducible uncertainties.

This study analyses whether science-policy interactions linked to the management of hazardous chemicals in the European marine environment have developed in accordance with general theories on public involvement in policymaking in general and post-normal science (PNS) in particular. Special attention is given to a comparison between key EU policy frameworks, namely the "polluter-oriented" registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) and the "environment-oriented" Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), based on in-depth analysis of key policy-related documents and interviews with scientists and policy actors. The results outline that in spite of a substantial amount of rhetoric in EU sources about recommending wide and ambitious public involvement, current participation and deliberation practices are rather undeveloped in the studied EU policy frameworks. Furthermore, it can be concluded that the introduction of more radical approaches to knowledge co-production and participation (like PNS) would require epistemological, institutional and constitutional changes that are not feasible in the foreseeable future, at least not in respect to chemicals management. This study generates empirical data with regard to the management of chemicals in the European marine environment, specifically data on participation, the role of science, and uncertainty treatment at the science-policy interface. These data provide empirical information that can be used by environmental managers involved in the development of EU marine policy. At the same time, the results can be used theoretically to reflect on and problematise the current state of wider public participation in EU environmental policies and PNS development in particular cases.

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.