, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 191–199 | Cite as

The Challenge of Bridging Science and Policy in the Baltic Sea Eutrophication Governance in Finland: The perspective of Science

  • Mia Pihlajamäki
  • Nina Tynkkynen


This article examines the views of scientists on intricacies of scientific knowledge that affect science–policy interface in the Baltic Sea eutrophication governance in Finland. The analysis demonstrates that these intricacies can be divided into five categories: (1) uncertainty of knowledge concerning ecological processes, (2) heterogeneity of knowledge, (3) societal and political call for (certain) knowledge, (4) contingency of the knowledge that ends up taken as a baseline for decision making and further research, and (5) linkages of knowledge production, processing, and communication to particular characteristics of individual researchers and research societies. By explicating these aspects, this article illustrates the ways in which scientific knowledge concerning eutrophication is human-bound and susceptible to interpretation, thus adding on to the uncertainty of the Baltic Sea environmental governance. The aim is, then, to open up perspectives on how ambiguities related to science–policy interface could be coped with.


Baltic Sea Environmental governance Eutrophication Finland Knowledge production Science–policy interface 


  1. Aps, R., G. Martin, and O. Roots. 2009. Baltic Sea action plan process: Co-production of science and policy. In Management of natural resources, sustainable development and ecological hazards II. WIT transactions on ecology and the environment, ed. C.A. Brebbia, N. Jovanovic, and E. Tiezzi, 187–198. Southampton: WIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bloor, D. 2004. Sociology of scientific knowledge. In Handbook of epistemology, ed. I. Niiniluoto, et al., 919–962. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Davis, A. 1996. Social research and alternative approaches to fisheries management: An introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources 9(3): 233–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Demeritt, D. 2006. Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Economy and Society 35: 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elmgren, R. 2001. Understanding human impact on the Baltic ecosystem: Changing views in recent decades. AMBIO 30: 222–231.Google Scholar
  6. Environment Committee. 2010. Ympäristövaliokunnan mietintö (consultation paper of the committee) 2/2010 vp. Accessed 10 November 2010.
  7. Finnish Environment Institute. 2010. Nutrient load and natural flush of water systems (in Finnish). Accessed 10 November 2010.
  8. Håkanson, L., and Bryhn, A.C. 2008. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: Present situation, nutrient transport processes, remedial strategies, 261 pp. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. HELCOM. 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea—an integrated thematic assessment of the effects of nutrient enrichment and eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 115B. 83 pp. Helsinki: HELCOM.Google Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. 2004. The idiom of co-production. In States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, 1–12. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Jokinen, P. 2000. Europeanisation and ecological modernisation: agri-environmental policy and practices in Finland. Environmental Politics 9: 138–167.Google Scholar
  12. Ministry of the Environment. 2007. Finnish Government decision-in-principle on Water Protection Policy Outline to 2015. Suomen ympäristö 10.Google Scholar
  13. National Audit Office of Finland. 2008. Reducing nutrient load from agriculture (in Finnish) Valtiontalouden tarkastusviraston toiminnantarkastuskertomus 175/2008.Google Scholar
  14. Pellizzoni, L. 1999. Reflexive modernisation and beyond. Knowledge and value in the politics of environment and technology. Theory, Culture & Society 16: 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Peuhkuri, T. 2004. The roles of knowledge in an environmental conflict. Eutrophication of Saaristomeri and fish farming in the public debate and decision making in Finland. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis. Turku: University of Turku (in Finnish, with a English abstract).Google Scholar
  16. Pietiläinen S. (ed.). 2008. Urban nitrogen load and the state of surface waters. Suomen ympäristö 46/2008 (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  17. Santala, E., and L. Etelämäki. 2009. Urban wastewater treatment 2007. Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 29/2009. Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute (in Finnish).Google Scholar
  18. Sismondo, S. 2004. An introduction to science and technology studies. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Vahtera, E., D. Conley, B. Gustafson, H. Kuosa, H. Pitkänen, O. Savchuk, T. Tamminen, N. Wasmund, et al. 2007. Internal ecosystem feedbacks enhance nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria blooms and complicate management in the Baltic Sea. AMBIO 36: 186–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson, D.C. 2009. The paradoxes of transparency. Science and the ecosystem approach to fisheries management in Europe. Mare Publication Series No. 5. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Finnish Institute of International AffairsHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Regional StudiesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations