Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /marpolbul

Eutrophication, risk management and sustainability. The perceptionsof different stakeholders in the northern Baltic Sea

Cecilia Lundberg ⇑Environmental and Marine Biology, Department of Biosciences, Åbo Akademi University, Artillerigatan 6, FI-20500 Åbo, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords:EutrophicationRisk managementEcosystem Approach to ManagementCommunicationBaltic Sea

0025-326X/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.09.031

⇑ Tel.: +358 2 2154604; fax: +358 2 2517013.E-mail address: cecilia.lundberg@abo.fi

The environmental condition of the Baltic Sea is not only of concern for natural scientists. The awarenessof the deteriorating state of the ecosystem has become an issue of interdisciplinary interest, and theamount of organizations with the marine environment and ecosystem health on the agenda is large.To present holistic and sustainable solutions and results of the actions taken, an active cooperationbetween all stakeholder groups and levels are needed. How different stakeholders in the northern BalticSea perceive the structures and assessments of the eutrophication were analyzed by semi-structuredinterviews with 17 stakeholders representing authorities, scientists, NGOs and national interest organi-zations. The focus was the view of the governance structures, risk assessment, management and commu-nication. There was an overall consensus that eutrophication is a serious problem. Still variations in theopinions both within and between the stakeholder groups were seen. The scientists were most divergentfrom the rest.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Eutrophication in the marine environment is a complex prob-lem with serious effects on the state and health of the ecosystem.The consequences of the anthropogenic nutrient over-enrichmenthave escalated since the second half of the 20th century and theawareness of the problem has spread from marine science to sev-eral levels of research, management and the overall human society.

The Baltic Sea is one of the largest brackish water bodies onEarth. Due to its characteristics, the Baltic Sea is highly sensitiveto all kinds of environmental harm of which eutrophication isthe most serious threat (e.g. special issues of Ambio, 1990, 2007;UNEP, 2005; HELCOM, 2009, 2010a). Many of the physico-chemicaland biological processes involved are studied, such as external andinternal loading of nutrients (e.g. Vahtera et al., 2007; Conley et al.,2009a), the spreading of hypoxia and its related processes (e.g.Díaz and Rosenberg, 2008, 2011; Conley et al., 2009b), increasedavailability for harmful, or toxic, algal blooms (e.g. Suikkanenet al., 2007; HELCOM, 2009), poorer conditions for zoobenthos(e.g. Karlson et al., 2002; HELCOM, 2009), and reduced fish habitats(e.g. Ojaveer, 2002; Sandström and Karås, 2002). Together with thecurrent scenarios of climate change (BACC Author Team, 2008;Schernewski et al., 2011), these problems will be even more pro-nounced in the future.

ll rights reserved.

Eutrophication is an intricate phenomenon to adapt into aframework of governance and proper management. Nutrient over-loading is not a risk in itself, i.e. phosphorus and nitrogen are nottoxins in the environment, but the effects of an over-stimulated pri-mary production and its ecological consequences pose serious riskscenarios for the entire marine environment. In terms of risk gover-nance, the effects of eutrophication need adaptive management andan ecosystem approach both for the aquatic ecosystem and the sur-rounding drainage area (Mee, 2005; HELCOM, 2010a). This includesprocesses in nature, political decisions, communication betweendisciplines and levels of decision making.

There is an important link between managing marine systemsand human well-being (Halpern et al., 2008). In the recent decadethe linkage of the eutrophication related effects and consequencesboth to other stressors on the marine environment and to a multi-disciplinary level involving e.g. socio-economic and ethical aspectshas been growing in importance (Lundberg, 2005). What evolves isa holistic pattern, which is essential for tackling of the problemfrom a management perspective. This involves certain ecologicalrisks and factors of uncertainty (Klinke and Renn, 2002; Renn,2008). Examples of ecological risks are overfishing, eutrophicationand harmful chemicals. To choose the most appropriate tactic toreduce the effects and consequences of eutrophication requiresgood knowledge of how the ecosystem functions as well as howpolitics work. The politicization of science and the scientificationof politics is a dynamic relationship which needs continuous main-tenance (Weingart, 1999).

By using an interview study the aim here is to present a view ofthe relations and opinions of the structure, assessment and

144 C. Lundberg / Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150

framing of the eutrophication situation in the Baltic Sea region, andhow eutrophication is perceived as a risk by different stakeholderswith diverging backgrounds but with the state and health of theBaltic Sea as a more or less common interest. Are the opinionsand attitudes of the different interest groups unanimous ordifferent?

2. Materials and methods

The empirical material presented and analysed stems fromqualitative semi-structured interviews, a method with a flexiblestructure, i.e. allowing new questions to be brought up duringthe interview depending on the answers from the former questions(Diefenbach, 2009). The interviewees represent a selection of keystakeholders mainly in Finland and Sweden, which are seen asforerunners in the work combating eutrophication. The stakehold-ers are divided into four groups; authorities (6 persons), scientists(5 persons), NGOs (4 persons), and interest organizations (2 per-sons; Table 1). The authorities are represented by persons fromthe ministries of environment and rural affairs in Finland andSweden, the secretariat of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM),the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), and theUnion of the Baltic Cities (UBC). SEPA is an independent authoritybut acting on the basis of the Swedish government ordinance andUBC is a voluntary network of over 100 cities in the Baltic Searegion.

The scientists represent three universities in Sweden and tworesearch institutes in Denmark and Finland. The non-governmentalorganizations are both international environmental NGOs and socalled philanthrocapitalistic NGOs, i.e. businessmen that throughcontacts invest financial, intellectual and human capital in projectsfor public benefit (Bishop, 2007). These environmental NGOs areWWF Sweden and Coalition Clean Baltic (CCB), the philanthrocap-italistic NGOs are the John Nurminen Foundation, and the BalticSea Action Group in Finland (BSAG). The biggest national interestorganizations of agriculture in Finland and Sweden, MTK – theCentral Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners – andLRF – the Federation of Swedish Farmers – respectively, representthe last stakeholder group (Table 1).

Table 1Presentation of the groups of stakeholders interviewed and the organizations and institut

Group ofstakeholder

Organization

Authorities HELCOM

Ministry of EnvironmentMinistry of Environment

Ministry of Rural Affairs

Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, SEPAUnion of the Baltic Cities, UBC

Scientists Lund UniversityStockholm UniversityUppsala UniversityDHIFinnish Environment Institute

NGOs WWFCoalition Clean Baltic, CCB

John Nurminen FoundationBaltic Sea Action Group, BSAG

Interestorganizations

The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest OwneMTKFederation of Swedish Farmers, LRF

The 17 interviews were performed during the autumn of 2010(5.10–11.11) within the RISKGOV project – Environmental RiskGovernance of the Baltic Sea (http://www.sh.se/riskgov) – part ofthe Bonus + programme (http://www.bonusportal.org). The inter-views followed a common guideline (Haahti et al., 2010) and lastedbetween 43 min and over two hours. They were taped and tran-scribed, while the interviewed persons were assured anonymity.All interviews were performed in English with one exception,where the mother tongue of the interviewee was used and after-wards translated into English. The analysis of the material followedthe empirical methods of qualitative content analysis (Silverman,1993; Kvale, 1996), a research method used in social sciences. InFigs. 1–3 the 16 most essential questions are selected from the ori-ginal guideline with a total of over 60 questions. The answers werecategorized to the four stakeholder groups (Figs. 1–3). In the dis-cussion of the outcome an overall attempt with reliability andvalidity was followed to reach possible objectiveness of the ana-lysed material (Silverman, 1993; Kvale, 1996; Diefenbach, 2009).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Governance structures

The environmental problems in the Baltic Sea are some of thereasons for the highly dynamic cooperation between the 14 nationsin the drainage area. The number of networks and organizations iswell developed and dynamic in a diverse hierarchical pattern in theBaltic Sea region (Kern and Löffelsend, 2004). The opinions of thenumber of networks and organizations are of interest in the inter-views. Fig. 1 (question 1) shows that it is primarily the group ofauthorities that see it as a benefit for the work with improvingthe state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem even if they are aware of theproblems with overlapping, contradictions and fragmentations thisoverload causes. The answer from the other groups is not as clear,and different opinions come to light. One scientist claimed thatthe number of networks is an advantage, but the problem is thatthey are not integrated. Generally, the NGOs agree with the author-ities. This is in line with Joas et al. (2007), saying that the competi-tion among the different networks is high – both for funding and for

ions they represent.

Country www-page

International, head quarter inFinland

http://www.helcom.fi

Finland http://www.environment.fiSweden http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/

2066Sweden http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/

2064Sweden http://www.naturvardsverket.se/International, head quarter inFinland

http://www.ubc.net

Sweden http://www.lu.seSweden http://www.su.seSweden http://www.uu.seDenmark http://www.dhigroup.comFinland http://www.environment.fi

Sweden http://www.wwf.seInternational, head quarter inSweden

http://www.ccb.se

Finland http://www.johnnurmisensaatio.fiFinland http://www.bsag.fi

rs, Finland http://www.mtk.fi

Sweden http://www.lrf.se

Governance structures 1. Is the amount of organizations in the BSR an advantage?

YES NO - Aut. 5 1 - Sci. 2 - 3 NGOs 2 2 - Int. org. - - 2

Problems: Fragmentation, overlapping, contradictions, confusion.

2. Is the enlargement of EU positive for the BSR?

YES NO - Aut. 5 - 1Sci. 4 - 1 NGOs 1 - 3 Int. org. 1 - 1

Problems: CAP.

3. Are the regulatory processes in the BSR steered from top-down (TD) or bottom-up (BU)?

TD BU Both -Aut. 2 - 2 2Sci. 2 - - 3NGOs 3 - 1 -Int. org. 1 1 - -

4. Do conflicts exist in the regulatory processes?

YES NO - Aut. 2 2 2 Sci. 4 - 1 NGOs 4 - - Int. org. 2 - -

Problems: Inside EU, EU-regional interests, science-politics.

5. Do NGOs have influence on management processes in the BSR?

YES NO -Aut. 2 2 2 Sci. 2 2 1 NGOs 2 - 2Int. org. 1 - 1

6. Is there organizations acting as barriers for the environmental governance in the BSR?

YES NO -Aut. 1 5 - Sci. 2 1 2 NGOs 2 - 2Int. org. 1 - 1

Problems: Strong lobbying, CAP, active avoiding, radical NGOs, fails in coordination.

Fig. 1. The six most essential questions on governance structures in the interviews. The answers are simplified (�means no answer to the question) and categorized to thestakeholder groups authorities (Aut.), scientists (Sci.), NGOs, and national interest organizations (Int. org.). Specific issues of concerns are picked out as problems. (BSR, theBaltic Sea region).

Risk assessment and management 1. Are risk assessment and management in the BSR well-coordinated?

YES NO - Aut. 1 2 3 Sci. 1 1 3 NGOs - 2 2 Int. org. - - 2

Positive: Nest-model. Negative: Gaps in knowledge, realism.

2. Is it more consensus (CO) or disagreement (DI) for the risks of eutrophication in the BSR?

CO DI Both - Aut. 5 - - 1Sci. 2 2 1 - NGOs - 2 1 1Int. org. 1 - - 1

Comments: The scientific disagreements are prevailing.

3. Is the scientific uncertainty considered enough for the eutrophication in the Baltic Sea?

YES NO - Aut. 5 1 -Sci. 3 2 - NGOs 2 1 1 Int. org. - 1 1

4. Are you familiar with EAM?

YES NO - Aut. 6 - - Sci. 5 - - NGOs 3 1 - Int. org. 2 - -

5. Do you/your organization apply EAM?

YES NO -Aut. 4 2 - Sci. 5 - - NGOs 3 1 -Int. org. - 2 -

Comment: A buzzword, fear that other sectors not know the meaning of the term.

Fig. 2. The five most essential questions on risk assessment and management in the interviews. The answers are simplified (�means no answer to the question) andcategorized to the stakeholder groups authorities (Aut.), scientists (Sci.), NGOs, and national interest organizations (Int. org.). Specific issues of concerns are picked out ascomments. (BSR, the Baltic Sea region; EAM, Ecosystem Approach to Management).

C. Lundberg / Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150 145

issues on their agenda – which enrich the political arena in the Bal-tic Sea region, but also giving rise to overlap between the networks.The shift from international and national government-based gover-nance to broader transnational governance based on hybrid

networks or other projects on a multi-actor level has introducedmarket economy to the policy process (Joas et al., 2007).

During the latest decade the EU (Text Box 1) has got theposition as the strongest international actor due to the

146 C. Lundberg / Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150

enlargement of the union and the importance of the commonregulations (Kern and Löffelsend, 2008; Kern et al., 2008). EUis the only regulatory body outside the level of nationalgovernmental states with binding legal rules, while HELCOM(Text Box 2) can only give recommendations. The decisionsare later made country wise in the national implementationplans (Backer et al., 2010). In the interview, one of thescientists said:

The HELCOM recommendations don’t mean anything in myopinion. They are done of political reasons, to be polite to Russiawho is not an EU member. It is only political reasons and polite-ness (Scientist).

Text Box 1. A brief description of the EU directives and policiesof most importance for the eutrophication and the Baltic Searegion

EUThe European Unions Sixth Environment Action Pro-

gramme regulates the framework of the environmental

policy of the EU for the period 2002-2012. The priority

areas are the climate change, nature and biodiversity,

environment and health, and natural resources and waste.

The European Commission consists of 19 different depart-

ments – Directorate-Generals (DGs). The eutrophication

and the Baltic Sea cover the directorates for environment,

for agriculture and rural development, and the regional

policy. Within the Environment DG the following direc-

tives are of importance:

� Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD; 91/271/

EEC) for the collection, treatment and discharge of urban

waste water and the treatment and discharge of waste

water from certain industrial sectors.

� Nitrates Directive (ND; 91/676/EEC) for the protection of

ground and surface water quality from nitrate pollution

caused by agriculture. To promote the use of good farm-

ing practices.

� Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) for the

protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters,

coastal waters and groundwater. The main aim is to pre-

vent further deterioration and achieve a ‘‘good status’’ of

all European waters. The water courses are divided into

separate water units according to the natural geographical

and hydrological conditions.

� Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; 2008/56/EC)

a complement to the WFD with similar goals, but imple-

mented for offshore waters. The key to the future EU mar-

itime policy.

The DG for Agricultural and Rural Development includes

the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the rural devel-

opment policy.

� The original aim for the CAP is financial aid and subsidies

for the farmers.

� Today also including animal welfare, food safety and envi-

ronmental conditions.

The DG for Regional Policy includes the EU Strategy forthe Baltic Sea Region. The idea with the Strategy is to inte-

grate the policies and directives of the EU, such as the CAP

and the MSFD. Also the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan is

used as a guide.

(EC, 2012a–d, Backer et al., 2010; HELCOM, 2010a)

Text Box 2. A brief description of HELCOM and the Baltic SeaAction Plan:

HELCOMHelsinki Commission, Baltic Marine Environment Pro-tection Commission

� Signed 1974, revised 1992.

� Intergovernmental cooperation including Estonia, Den-

mark, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Lithuania, Russia, Poland,

Sweden and the EU.

� Main role: Supervise the implementation of the Helsinki

Convention, i.e. to counter pollution in the Baltic Sea

caused by human activities.

� Tasks: Monitoring and evaluation of the environmental

status, decisions on recommendations for the contracting

parties to follow and implement in the national law.

� Divided into working groups and projects focusing on spe-

cific issues.

� Regular meetings for the members, open for NGOs with

observation status.

� Applying the Ecosystem Approach since 2003.

� Adopted the Baltic Sea Action Plan 2007.

The Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP)� Aim: Restore the good ecological status in the Baltic Sea

by the year 2021.

� Based on ecological objectives, environmental targets and

management actions.

� Focus areas: eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodi-

versity and habitats, and maritime safety.

� Linked to the decision support system Nest (http://nest.-

su.se/nest).

� Measures for national/regional-, EU-, and global levels.

(HELCOM, 2007, 2012; Backer and Leppanen, 2008; Backer

et al., 2010).

The Baltic Sea has the role as a model area of regional coopera-tion in the European Union. Therefore, the contacts with EU and itslegally binding directives have reorganized the structures of HEL-COM. A tight cooperation between HELCOM and the EU is mostbeneficial for the Baltic Sea region, which also is the primary levelof governance, i.e. mainly top-down regulated. Independently ofbackground, the majority of the interviewees (Fig. 1, question 3)considered that the regulatory processes in the Baltic Sea regionare steered from the top. There were opinions raised that it is eventoo much top-down regulated, and there is a need for a regionali-zation only adapted for the conditions in the Baltic area, which isalso the focus for the organizations on the non-EU level.

The enlargement of EU is positive according both to the author-ities and the scientists (Fig. 1, question 2), mainly because of thelegally binding directives and the possibility to financial supportby funding through the EU. There were some ambivalent opinionsboth in the NGO and the authority group that saw the regulation ofthe waste water treatment as a positive aspect of the EU member-ships, while the agricultural policies, especially the Common Agri-cultural Policy (CAP), pose problems linking to the organization ofEU. On the one hand the CAP is two-sided to its structure withplans for a sustainable rural development, but is at the same timegiving subsidies for conventional agriculture (Fig. 1, questions 4and 6). On the other hand CAP is not in synergy with the WaterFramework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework

The role of communication 1. Is the communication scientists-stakeholder functioning?

YES NO - Aut. 1 4 1 Sci. 3 2 - NGOs - 2 2 Int. org. 2 - -

Comments: Improved, a play, fails, no actions.

2. Is the communication stakeholder-stakeholder functioning?

YES NO ? - Aut. 3 1 1 1Sci. 1 - 1 3NGOs 2 2 - - Int. org. 2 - - -

Comments: In a way functioning, but not enough.

3. Is the role of media positive?

YES NO Both -Aut. 2 - - 4Sci. 1 1 1 2NGOs 1 - - 3Int. org. - 1 1 -

4. Are you/your organization involved in risk communication?

YES NO - Aut. 4 2 - Sci. 5 - - NGOs 3 1 - Int. org. 2 - -

Comments: The target groups differs, not all communicate with the general public.

5. If yes, is the communication 1- or 2-way?

1-w 2-w Both -Aut. 3 - 1 2Sci. 3 - 1 1NGOs - 1 1 2Int. org. - - 1 1

Fig. 3. The five most essential questions on the role of communication in the interviews. The answers are simplified (�means no answer to the question) and categorized tothe stakeholder groups authorities (Aut.), scientists (Sci.), NGOs, and national interest organizations (Int. org.). Specific issues of concerns are picked out as comments.

C. Lundberg / Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150 147

Directive (MSFD). In many of the interviews, demands and hopesfor the reform of the CAP in 2014 (EC, 2012c) are expressed. Toquote some of the voices from NGOs and authorities in the inter-views: ‘‘CAP is very focused on conventional intensive farming,that’s their whole approach’’ (NGO). ‘‘Hopefully CAP and MSFD willbe more closed in connection when CAP is renewed’’ (Authority).‘‘CAP is part of the problem, it is not a solution’’ (Authority).‘‘CAP needs a regionalization and stronger requirements for e.g.fertilizers’’ (NGO). ‘‘The agricultural sector is really close. The agri-cultural ministers of all countries are more defending their posi-tions than interacting’’ (NGO).

The big advantage with HELCOM is that all the countries in theBaltic Sea region are involved. The role of both EU and HELCOM isclarified in one of the scientist interviews:

I am a big fan of the EU directives but I am naturally also a verybig fan of HELCOM. HELCOM has an important coordinatingrole, especially for monitoring and assessment. But in terms ofactions and governance, HELCOM’s role is limited (Scientist).

The work of the non-governmental organizations, NGOs, andthe interest organizations on a national level have a more indirectposition in the governance processes (Fig. 1, question 5), which in-clude membership in project or working groups, or an observerstatus in the processes surrounding decision-making. One of thescientists expressed his view very clearly in the interview:

Everybody tends to say: We want the stakeholders involved, butin a Baltic perspective the stakeholders play a very, very limitedrole. Who cares about Baltic Farmers Association, who caresabout WWF Baltic? It is a sort of theatre. We need, we listenand take note of each other’s pin points but at the bottom linewhat matters are the EU directives (Scientist).

The related question about conflicts and barriers for the gover-nance processes is presented in Fig. 1 (question 6) that yes, con-flicts exist, but there is not any clear black sheep to blame. Theproblem areas which are mentioned are e.g. conflicts between dif-ferent EU directives, mismatches between science and politics, andtoo radical actions from some of the NGOs. However, there is noclear voice that the NGOs have much influence on the management

processes, even if they play a criticizing role in being the ‘‘Bad boy’’that one of the interviewees called his organization in raisingquestions nobody else are asking or in a new way. The fact thatthe new system with observer status inside EU and HELCOM pro-vides the NGOs a better insight in the decision-making processesand they also have an important role in actively taking part in pro-jects and driving the public opinions.

3.2. Risk assessment and management

The question in the interview weather the risk assessment andrisk management is well-coordinated among the Baltic countries,seems to be complicated to answer irrespective of stakeholdergroup (Fig. 2, question 1). The decision support system Nest(http://nest.su.se/nest/) is mentioned as a good example, while dif-ferences in knowledge and realism are examples of negative coordi-nation between different stakeholder groups. The Nest modelintegrates environmental data with economic costs to build scenar-ios for the Baltic Sea and is at present the predominating model ofthis kind for the Baltic Sea region. The Nest model is connected tothe HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) with the aim to give bothscientific advice and management options (Wulff et al., 2001, 2007;Johansson et al., 2007; BNI, 2012). The Nest model is an illustrativeexample of the tight relationship between assessment and manage-ment in the interface between science and policy in the Baltic Searegion. The comments about Nest are not exclusively of a positivenature. Also critical voices are raised, arguing that one single modelhas got too much power in the management processes.

There seems to be a general distinction between risk assess-ment and risk management. Both demands and willingness for abetter coordination between the results and advice from naturalscience and policy implementation are expressed, but theoreticalresults are difficult to create. HELCOM has got the role as the pri-mary policy actor, both in the initiation of risk assessment activi-ties and in the production of management proposals. The work ofHELCOM is strongly influenced by the scientific community. Thereseems to be a concrete gap in the linkage of costs of policy imple-mentation and environmental targets (Elofsson, 2010). Theeconomic costs for reductions on the effects and consequences of

148 C. Lundberg / Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150

eutrophication are enormous – according to calculations inHELCOM and NEFCO (2007), the total annual cost of applying theeutrophication targets set in the HELCOM BSAP (HELCOM, 2007)is approximately EUR 3 billion for the Baltic Sea region as whole– and demand appropriate management strategies. As Elofsson(2010) states, further research is needed for realistic measures ofenvironmental problems, such as eutrophication, into economicterms. The challenge for such analysis must be able to incorporatean economic framework to ecosystem models, but still include along time perspective and uncertainty for realistic and relevant re-sults (Huhtala et al., 2009; Elofsson, 2010). These kinds of discus-sions have resulted in several working groups with the aim toproduce reports similar to the Stern Review (Stern, 2007) for theeconomics of climate change (Huhtala et al., 2009; BalticSTERN,2012). For the Baltic Sea the aim is to combine ecology with econ-omy, management and the public opinions and attitudes (Huhtalaet al., 2009).

The opinions of a consensus in the view of eutrophication in theBaltic Sea are prevailing in the interviews (Fig. 2, question 2). How-ever, disagreements exist both on an internal scientific level andbetween science and politics. One of the scientists in the interviewexpressed a fear for stakeholders trusting the ‘‘wrong’’ scientificadvice. According to the interviewee, it is preferable if the manage-ment is based on real facts and evidences. If the stakeholderschoose to rely on research without consensus in the main scientificassemblage, the response in the environment can be severe. Over-all, most of the disagreements seem to be focusing on details, suchas the debate of reducing phosphorus, nitrogen or both nutrients(Conley et al., 2009a), mistrust or concurrence in methods or be-tween research groups.

The different views for science and policy in coping with uncer-tainties evolve an interesting debate for these two worlds to meetand agree on the same standards. The primary goal in science is theavoidance of being wrong, and therefore builds the knowledge onearlier findings. The policy goal is to address challenges and prob-lems in the society (Kinzig et al., 2003). The awareness of scientificuncertainties is also a well-known fact in almost all stakeholdergroups (Fig. 2, question 3) even if the tools for dealing with uncer-tainties in the regulatory framework for eutrophication in the Bal-tic Sea are not resolved. The interviewees agreed more or less thatit seems harder for scientists to cope with uncertainties than forpolitics, in line with Kinzig et al. (2003). It seems like marine ecol-ogists are afraid of communicating with politicians using uncertaindata without a clear answer or solution to the problem. One of thescientists said in the interview: ‘‘The politicians or the decisionmakers deserve a lot of credit. They know that we do not haveabsolute knowledge about the system’’ (Scientist). Another of thescientists interviewed exposed the other side of the coin: ‘‘One ofthe things we are being taught to with science communication isto make our message simple. And uncertainty is not simple atall’’ (Scientist).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; http://www.ipcc.ch) is a good example of a voluntary, scientific bodyworking for an as objective as possible assessment of the currentstate of knowledge in its field. One of the scientists said in theinterview:

Climate researchers are much more used to work with uncer-tainties. They also stress that they work with scenarios, not pre-dictions. I think it is very important to make this distinction,that you can set scenarios (Scientist).

However, managers also have a responsibility to be flexible to-wards uncertainties, and see beyond the more rigid structures oftraditional management (Curtin and Prellezo, 2010). How the termuncertainty is framed is also of importance. In Jönsson (2011) it is

evident that eutrophication is not linked to uncertainty in terms oflack of scientific knowledge, but of measures and cost-effectivesolutions.

This leads further to questions of the Ecosystem Approach toManagement (EAM, also called Ecosystem Approach, or EcosystemBased Management), which is a well-known term by all intervie-wees (Fig. 2, questions 4–5). EAM stands for a holistic view includ-ing sustainability, ecological health and the impact of humans(Curtin and Prellezo, 2010; Trush and Dayton, 2010; Atkins et al.,2011). The concept of EAM is based on the principles defined byThe Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD, 2012). EAM differsfrom traditional management in that it is suited for a specific geo-graphical area. It considers both the existing knowledge and uncer-tainties with the aim to balance all the multiple factors involved inthe ecosystem processes (Curtin and Prellezo, 2010). E.g. the BSAPis built on the concept of EAM (Backer and Leppänen, 2008; Backeret al., 2010). In fact, it is a so called buzzword, which is mentionedin many of the interviews. Many ecologists have applied it natu-rally, and now think management is using it without knowingthe exact meaning. One of the scientists said: ‘‘Authorities or deci-sion makers are very happy with the approach but they haven’t inmy opinion completely understood the implications. We [the mar-ine scientists] are the only ones that understand the real meaningof EAM’’ (Scientist). This comment is interesting to relate to the factthat EAM is a socio-ecological and political framework (Trush andDayton, 2010). There are too many values included in the termEAM to view it as an objective knowledge (Kemp and Martens,2007). It is of importance to ensure that all stakeholder groups par-ticipate in the EAM process, otherwise the whole idea fails andloses legitimacy (Curtin and Prellezo, 2010). The problem withexpressions that are converted to buzzwords among differentstakeholder groups is that the correct definition becomes unclearand the term means different things to different users (Meeet al., 2008).

3.3. The role of communication

The questions about communication were related both to thescience-stakeholder perspective and to the general public via med-ia (Fig. 3). Almost all interviewees agreed to take a more or less ac-tive role in communication. However, the target groups differ frome.g. internally, inside the own organization, to governmental andstakeholder level. Only a few are involved in communication di-rectly to the general public or trade and industry. The opinions ofthe communication among scientists and stakeholders dividedthe interviewees into two groups. The scientists and national inter-est groups think it is functioning, even if a few voices say that it isnot sufficient, only a game or overall of no use. The authorities andNGOs are more critical to the functioning of the science-stake-holder connection, but confess that the communication has im-proved during the latest years. However, much can still beameliorated. It is easy for scientists to put the last responsibilityon the politicians and see themselves in an advising role. The sci-entists are also quick to scream out load that nobody is listeningto them. But all blame cannot be laid on the decision makers ifthe information is deficient. One of the authorities said in the inter-view: ‘‘It’s important that the scientists are connecting and gettinginvolved a little bit in policy work so they understand that. And sci-entists need to learn to communicate a little bit better’’ (Authority).In one of the interviews with the national interest group problemsof the linkage between researcher and the end-users of the scien-tific results were discussed: ‘‘They [the researchers] would identifyfirst of all that their knowledge has some end-users. That also otherpeople are interested in their knowledge, and that they need to be

C. Lundberg / Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150 149

able to transfer it into an understandable and clear message to theend-users’’ (National interest organization).

The role of communication between stakeholders gets moreconsensuses. It is functioning, even if it still could be more effec-tive. As one of the authorities expresses it:

I would say that the communication is rather confusing. I mean,there are so many stakeholders in the field at the moment. Theyare working at different levels, they are working with differentobjectives, different funding and at the moment we do not havea single forum where all this communication would meet. So itis a rather complicated field (Authority).

However, also problematic issues were framed on the stake-holder level: ‘‘In many countries you have big problems with com-munication between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministryof Environment’’ (NGO).

HELCOM is suggested as an organization to take a responsiblerole for the communication processes, but also a lot of alternativesare proposed, from national environmental authorities to NGOsand the EU. On the one hand, the reports produced by HELCOM(e.g. HELCOM, 2009, 2010a, 2010b) get positive judgments bothfor their outfit and availability on the Internet. On the other hand,nothing is static and can always be improved, as one of the author-ities mentioned: ‘‘. . .it’s no interactive possibility in HELCOM webpages, so I think there are a lot which can be improved regardingcommunication’’ (Authority).

The role of media is diverging in the interviews. Media pos-sesses power in choosing which problems and which side of theparticular problem that may come into light. According to Lyytimä-ki (2007), news about eutrophication is concentrated to eventsrather than long-term perspectives. ‘‘There’s no role, they just flashthe bad news, they never tell about the good news’’ (Scientist). Pih-lajamäki and Tynkkynen (2011a) also noted a fear for scientists incommunicating their results to a wider public. By popularizing thescientific results, the researcher seems to be afraid of losing credi-bility among the colleagues (Pihlajamäki and Tynkkynen, 2011a).The interviews showed that the dominating direction of the com-munication is one way (Fig. 3, question 5). A better general aware-ness and perception would certainly evolve if the communicationis widening from an informative to dialogue or discussion type ofacting. Eutrophication is the environmental problem or risk inthe Baltic Sea which receives the most media attention (Lyytimäki,2007; Jönsson, 2011). However, it is different kind of stakeholdergroups that are the main actors, the general public and businessrepresentatives have a much more anonymous role (Jönsson,2011). The communication between science and the general publichas also been criticised for being asymmetric, hierarchical andpaternalistic (Jones and Paramor, 2010). Reflective to the termmediatization – the role media has on politics and how an issueis framed (Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999; Jönsson, 2011) – shouldengage scientists to take a more active role in their communicationwith media. According to Jones and Paramor (2010), on the onehand the public is expected to trust scientists, but on the otherhand the ways to make science more accessible for the ordinarycitizens are still under development.

4. Conclusions

The assessment of eutrophication as a risk for the present andfuture state of the Baltic Sea is not seen as a problem. The eutrophi-cation is a well-known and identified fact for citizens in the BalticSea region. The problem is the risk management and the measures.The uncertainties surrounding the consequences for the marineecosystem in regard to different measurements make especiallythe scientists cautious and even skeptic to radical and innovativemeasures. The conservative scientists then stand in conflict with

actors arguing for quicker actions surrounded by more uncertaintyin the results and without a clear view of the consequences for theenvironment. Overall the time dimension is a dilemma. The natureis reacting slowly and the consequences of the management can-not be judge until after several decades. Still, the time frames forall action plans must be set within a twenty years perspective un-less they loss impact on the political level.

There is an implementation gap between the scientific consen-sus on one side and the management consensus on the other, asone of the scientists commented it. The fragmentation of the gov-ernance and the lack of a clear coordination of the eutrophicationin the Baltic Sea are problematic. The EU has a natural and power-ful role as the main coordinator, but the structure of EU is givingrise to internal collisions among interests. Also the importance offully integrating Russia to the cooperation is difficult if all workis ruled through the EU.

A suggestion for a first step in the discussion how to improveand develop the management of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is to clar-ify the meaning and implementation of the EAM. This is in linewith Pihlajamäki and Tynkkynen (2011b) arguing that the man-agement of the Baltic Sea needs both specification of instruments,and integration of administration and policy sectors.

Regarding the improvement of communication most effortshould be laid on the contacts between the scientists and the agri-cultural interest organizations.

‘‘What is a good Baltic Sea, what is a good environment?’’(Scientist). The most divergent view is if the organizations actingas barriers in the environmental governance. The scientists andthe NGOs consider more disagreement in perceiving the risk ofeutrophication than the rest of the stakeholder groups. A holisticand sustainable way of action is supported by cooperation on allstakeholder groups and governance levels. The carrying capacityof the Baltic Sea ecosystem has to be the common priority. If thedamage to the ecosystem is an irreversible risk, lack of full scien-tific certainty is not an argument for disregarding measurements(Mee et al., 2008).

Acknowledgements

I thank Sebastian Linke, Gunilla Reisner and Markus Wanamowho accomplished the interviews within the RISKGOV project,which this study also is part of. RISKGOV has received funding fromthe European Community’s Seventh Framework Program (FP/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 217246 made with thejoint Baltic Sea research and development program BONUS. Allthe anonymous interviewees are acknowledged for their timeand knowledge to broaden the picture of the state of the BalticSea. Prof. Erik Bonsdorff gave valuable comments on the manu-script and PD Ralf Kauranen gave advice on sociological analysisliterature.

References

Ambio, 1990. Special issue: Marine eutrophication. Ambio 19 (3).Ambio, 2007. Special issue: Science and governance of the Baltic Sea. Ambio 36 (2-

3).Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Gregory, A.J., 2011. Management of the marine

environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with theDPSIR framework in a systems approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 215–226.

BACC Author Team, 2008. Assessment of Climate Change for the Baltic Sea Basin.Springer, Berlin.

Backer, H., Leppänen, J.-M., 2008. The HELCOM system of a vision, strategic goalsand ecological objectives: implementing an ecosystem approach to themanagement of human activities in the Baltic Sea. Aquat. Conserv: Mar.Freshw. Ecosyst. 18, 321–334.

Backer, H., Leppänen, J.-M., Brusendorff, A.C., Forsius, K., Stankiewicz, M., Mehtonen,J., Pyhälä, M., Laamanen, M., Paulomäki, H., Vlasov, N., Haaranen, T., 2010.HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan – a regional programme of measures for themarine environment based on the ecosystem approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60,642–649.

150 C. Lundberg / Marine Pollution Bulletin 66 (2013) 143–150

BalticSTERN, 2012. Systems Tools and Ecological–Economic Evaluation – A ResearchNetwork. <http://www.stockholmresilience.org/balticstern>.

Bishop, M., 2007. What is philanthrocapitalism? Allianze Magazine. 12 (1). <http://www.alliancemagazine.org/>.

BNI, 2012. Baltic Nest Institute. <http://www.balticnest.org/>.CBD, 2012. Convention on Biological Diversity. <http://www.cbd.int/>.Conley, D.J., Paerl, H.W., Howarth, R.W., Boesch, D.F., Seitzinger, S.P., Havens, K.E.,

Lancelot, C., Likens, G.E., 2009a. Controlling eutrophication: nitrogen andphosphorus. Science 323, 1014–1015.

Conley, D.J., Björk, S., Bonsdorff, E., Carstensen, J., Destouni, G., Gustafsson, B.G.,Hietanen, S., Kortekaas, M., Kuosa, H., Meier, H.E.M., Müller-Karulis, B.,Nordberg, K., Norkko, A., Nürnberg, G., Pitkänen, H., Rabalais, N.N., Rosenberg,R., Savchuk, O.P., Slomp, C.P., Voss, M., Wulff, F., Zillén, L., 2009b. Hypoxia-related processes in the Baltic Sea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3412–3420.

Curtin, R., Prellezo, R., 2010. Understanding marine ecosystem based management:a literature review. Mar. Policy 34, 821–830.

Díaz, R.J., Rosenberg, R., 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marineecosystems. Science 321, 926–929.

Díaz, R.J., Rosenberg, R., 2011. Introduction to environmental and economicconsequences of hypoxia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 27, 71–82.

Diefenbach, T., 2009. Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling?:methodological problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based onsemi-structured interviews. Qual. Quant. 43, 875–894.

EC, 2012a. European Commission Environment, Water. <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/index_en.htm>.

EC, 2012b. European Commission Regional Policy. EU Strategy for the Baltic SeaRegion. <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/baltic/index_en.cfm>.

EC, 2012c. European Commission Agricultural and Rural Development. Agricultureand the Environment: Introduction. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm>.

EC, 2012d. European Commission. Agriculture and Rural Development. <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm>.

Elofsson, K., 2010. The costs of meeting the environmental objectives for the BalticSea: a review of the literature. Ambio 39, 49–58.

Haahti, B-M., Hedenström, E., Linke, S., Lundberg, C., Reisner, G., Wanamo, M. 2010.Case-Study Report: Eutrophication. Deliverable 2, RISKGOV Project. <http://www.sh.se/riskgov>.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., D’Agrosa, F.M.C., Bruno, J.F.,Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin,E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., Watson, R., 2008. Aglobal map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–952.

HELCOM, 2007. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. Helsinki Commission.HELCOM, 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea – an integrated thematic

assessment of the effects of nutrient enrichment in the Baltic Sea region.Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 115B.

HELCOM, 2010a. Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM initialholistic assessment. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 122.

HELCOM, 2010b. Towards a tool for quantifying anthropogenic pressures andpotential impacts on the Baltic Sea marine environment: a backgrounddocument on the method, data and testing of the Baltic Sea pressure andimpact indices. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 125.

HELCOM, 2012. Helsinki Commission, Baltic Sea Environment ProtectionCommission. <http://www.helcom.fi/>.

HELCOM and NEFCO, 2007. Economic Analysis of the BSAP with Focus onEutrophication. Final Report, COWI.

Huhtala, A., Ahtiainen, H., Ekholm, P., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., Heikkilä, J., Heiskanen,A-S., Helin, J., Helle, I., Hyytiäinen, K., Hällfors, H., Iho, A., Koikkalainen, K.,Kuikka, S., Lehtiniemi, M., Mannio, J., Mehtonen, J., Miettinen, A., Mäntyniemi, S.,Peltonen, H., Pouta, E., Pylkkö, M., Salmiovirta, M., Verta, M., Vesterinen, J.,Viitasalo, M., Viitasalo-Frösen, S., Väisänen, S. 2009. The economics of the stateof the Baltic Sea. Pre-study assessing the feasibility of a cost-benefit analysis ofprotecting the Baltic Sea ecosystem. The Finnish Advisory Board for SectoralResearch, Report 2-2009.

Joas, M., Kern, K., Sandberg, S., 2007. Actors and arenas in hybrid networks:implications for environmental policymaking in the Baltic Sea region. Ambio 36,237–242.

Johansson, S., Bonsdorff, E., Wulff, F., 2007. The MARE research program 1999–2006– reflections on program management. Ambio 36, 119–122.

Jones, K.E., Paramor, O.A.L., 2010. Interdisciplinarity in ecosystems research:developing social robustness in environmental science. In: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid,C.L.J. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology. A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Jönsson, A.M., 2011. Framing environmental risks in the Baltic Sea: a news mediaanalysis. Ambio 40, 121–132.

Karlson, K., Rosenberg, R., Bonsdorff, E., 2002. Temporal and spatial large-scaleeffects of eutrophication and oxygen deficiency on benthic fauna inScandinavian waters – a review. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 40, 427–489.

Kemp, R., Martens, P., 2007. Sustainable development: how to manage somethingthat is subjective and never can be achieved? Sustainability: science practice.Policy 3, 5–14.

Kern, K., Löffelsend, T., 2004. Governance beyond the nation state in the Baltic Searegion. Local Environ. 9, 451–467.

Kern, K., Löffelsend, T., 2008. Governance beyond the nation state:transnationalization and Europeanization of the Baltic Sea region. In: Joas, M.,Jahn, D., Kern, K. (Eds.), Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policies in theBaltic Sea Region. Earthscan, London.

Kern, K., Joas, M., Jahn, D., 2008. Governing a common sea: comparative patterns forsustainable development. In: Joas, M., Jahn, D., Kern, K. (Eds.), Governing aCommon Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region. Earthscan,London.

Kinzig, A., Starrett, D., Arrow, K., Aniyar, S., Bolin, B., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P., Folke,C., Hanemann, M., Heal, G., Hoel, M., Jansson, A.M., Jansson, B.-O., Kautsky, N.,Levin, S., Lubchenco, J., Mäler, K.-G., Pacala, S.W., Schneider, S.H., Siniscalco, D.,Walker, B., 2003. Coping with uncertainty: a call for a new science policy forum.Ambio 32, 330–335.

Klinke, A., Renn, O., 2002. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Anal. 22, 1071–1094.

Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.Sage Publications, London.

Lundberg, C., 2005. Conceptualizing the Baltic Sea ecosystem – an interdisciplinarytool for environmental decision making. Ambio 34, 433–439.

Lyytimäki, J.M., 2007. Temporalities and environmental reporting: press news oneutrophication in Finland. Environ. Sci. 4, 41–51.

Mazzoleni, G., Schulz, W., 1999. Mediatization of politics: a challenge fordemocracy? Polit. Commun. 16, 247–261.

Mee, L., 2005. Assessment and monitoring requirements for the adaptivemanagement of Europes regional seas. In: Vermaat, J., Bouwer, L., Turner, R.K.,Salomons, W. (Eds.), Managing European Coasts: Past, Present and Future.Springer Verlag, Berlin.

Mee, L.D., Jefferson, R.L., Laffoley, D.dÁ., Elliott, M., 2008. How good is good? humanvalues and Europes proposed marine strategy directive. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56,187–204.

Ojaveer, H., 2002. Environmental impacts on fish and ecosystem effects of fishing inthe Baltic Sea. Estonian Marine Institute Report Series No. 11, Tallinn.

Pihlajamäki, M., Tynkkynen, N., 2011a. The challenge of bridging science and policyin the Baltic Sea eutrophication governance in Finland: the perspective ofscience. Ambio 40, 191–199.

Pihlajamäki, M., Tynkkynen, N. (Eds.), 2011b. Governing the blue-green Baltic Sea.Societal challenges of marine eutrophication prevention. FIIA Report 31, TheFinnish Institute of International Affairs.

Renn, O., 2008. Risk governance. Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World.Earthscan, London.

Sandström, A., Karås, P., 2002. Effects of eutrophication on young-of-the-year fresh-water fish communities in coastal areas of the Baltic. Environ. Biol. Fishes 63,89–101.

Schernewski, G., Hofstede, J., Neumann, T., 2011. Global change and Baltic coastalzones. Coastal Research Library, vol. 1. Springer, Berlin.

Silverman, D., 1993. Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Textand Interaction. springer, London.

Stern, N., 2007. The economics of climate change. The Stern Review. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Suikkanen, S., Laamanen, M., Huttunen, M., 2007. Long-term changes in summerphytoplankton communities of the open northern Baltic Sea. Estuar. Coast. ShelfSci. 71, 580–592.

Trush, S.F., Dayton, P.K., 2010. What can ecology contribute to ecosystem-basedmanagement? Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2, 419–441.

UNEP, 2005. In: Lääne, A., Kraav, E., Titova, G. (Eds.), Baltic Sea, GIWA, RegionalAssessment 17. University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden.

Vahtera, E., Conley, D.J., Gustafsson, B.G., Kuosa, H., Pitkänen, H., Savchuk, O.P.,Tamminen, T., Viitasalo, M., Voss, M., Wasmund, N., Wulff, F., 2007. Internalecosystem feedbacks enhance nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria blooms andcomplicate management in the Baltic Sea. Ambio 36, 186–194.

Weingart, P., 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes ofscience in politics. Sci. Publ. Policy 26, 151–161.

Wulff, F., Bonsdorff, E., Gren, I.-M., Johansson, S., Stigebrandt, A., 2001. Giving advicein cost effective measures for a cleaner Baltic Sea: a challenge for science.Ambio 30, 254–259.

Wulff, F., Savchuk, O.P., Sokolov, A., Humborg, C., Mörth, C.-M., 2007. Managementoptions and effects on a marine ecosystem: assessing the future of the Baltic.Ambio 36, 243–249.