Knowledge for environmental governance: probing science–policy theory in the cases of eutrophication and fisheries in the Baltic Sea

Abstract

How science and policy interact has been a major research focus in the International Relations (IR) tradition, using the epistemic community (EC) concept, as well as in the alternative perspective of Science and Technology Studies (STS). Should science be autonomous and as apolitical as possible in order to 'speak truth to power', as suggested by EC or should the inevitable entanglement of science and politics be accepted and embraced so as to make advice more conducive to negotiating the explicit travails of political decision-making as suggested by STS? With this point of departure, we compare similarities and differences between science-policy interactions in the issue areas of eutrophication and fisheries management of the Baltic Sea. To examine how knowledge is mobilised, the concepts of 'uncertainty' and 'coherence' are developed, drawing on both EC and STS thinking. We then reflect on the explanatory value of these approaches in both cases and discuss how a separation of science and policy-making in the pursuit of achieving scientific consensus leads to ineffectual policies. Drawing on STS thinking, we urge for a reconceptualisation of coherence in order to accommodate a more reflexive practice of science-policy interactions.ARTICLE HISTORY

Science-Policy Interface in Regional Environmental Management: Case of Helcom in the Baltic Context

“…Despite persistent efforts, marine environment management is frequently challenged by complexities and technical uncertainty, especially in terms of unpredictable ecosystem dynamics and characteristics of pollution sources. In areas of high uncertainty and political complexities, scientific knowledge is a crucial aspect of the success of environmental policies, especially in marine environment management (Saunders, Gilek, & Linke, 2017). The objective of the paper is to how scientific knowledge is in-corporated into regional environmental policymaking in the Baltic case from the perspective of the science-policy interface framework.…”

“…In the previous literature, the adoption of BSAP in 2007 was regarded as unique and successful science-policy interaction where the scientific community recommended concrete targets of the regional policy and policymakers adopted these as a part of the Ministerial declaration (Saunders, Gilek, & Linke, 2017;Backer et al, 2010). It succeeded as scientific outputs were directly applicable to the BSAP (Johansson & Wulff, 2007).…”

The Baltic Sea and global environmental change

“…These features allow for broader stakeholder involvement in the development and implementation phases, which enhances the legitimacy of regulation. Stakeholder engagement has become one of the dominant features of environmental governance in the Baltic Sea Region (Saunders et al, 2017;Linke and Jentoft, 2014;Linke et al, 2011). As noted by Evans et al (2005), however, stakeholder engagement cannot replace institutional capacity as such, even if it makes the odds for success better in implementing new policies and regulations.…”

Estimating economic impacts linked to Marine Spatial Planning with input-output techniques. Application to three case studies

“…MSP provides clear ecological and environmental benefits, but it can also have a variety of socioeconomic effects (not necessarily positive). Previous studies have focused on how socioeconomic data, among other types of information, can inform and be integrated into MSP processes [26], as well as the ways in which an evaluation process for MSP can be designed, paying special attention to the planning [27][28][29][30][31][32], the sustainability of the governance [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40], or transboundary aspects [41,42]. Anticipating MSP's possible impacts on economic activity would undoubtedly facilitate the work of planners and increase the chances of success of these public policies.…”