ABSTRACT
Interactions between scientific assessments and management decision-making are key determinants for the efficiency of environmental risk governance. This applies particularly to marine ecosystems like the Baltic Sea, where fisheries and eutrophication pose serious threats connected to environmental, social and economic aspects of sustainability. Using contemporary science-policy theory, this paper investigates structures, challenges and prospects of science-policy interfaces connected to fisheries and eutrophication governance in the Baltic Sea. We analyse and compare the two cases with respect to two aspects: first the design and organisational structures of the institutional frameworks and second the management of uncertainties and stakeholder disagreements in the two risk cases. The analyses reveal how conventional natural science-based policy-making is insufficient for the requirements of complex environmental governance arenas like fisheries and eutrophication. Both cases show a high, almost exclusive, dependence on science-based advice regarding the organisational and institutional structures of their science-policy interfaces. They also expose remarkable differences with respect to stakeholder disagreements about the interplay between science, other knowledge and policy decisions. In the eutrophication case, consensual science-based advice shaped policy decisions in a comparatively uncomplicated manner. In fisheries by contrast, stakeholder disagreements and different interpretations of scientific uncertainties created serious confusions about the basic role of science in policy. We identify and discuss factors contributing to the observed differences in the science-policy interplay of fisheries and eutrophication management. Our results highlight a misleading conceptual understanding of science-policy interfaces between the normative idea of objective, science-based policy-making and the political challenges of dealing with the social aspects of uncertainty and stakeholder disagreements in environmental risk governance.
