Goherr: 3.2. Online description of the scenarios developed, applicable in the dioxin model (Task 5.1) and decision support model of WP6 (Month 16). Responsible partner: UOULU.

From Opasnet
Jump to: navigation, search

Summary of the scenarios developed in the WP3 of the BONUS GOHERR project

The aim

The underlying aim of the scenario building exercise is to examine how eutrophication, dioxin releases, salmon policy and use of herring catch might change by 2040. For this purpose, four contrasting or critically different scenarios for the possible future state were built to explore how the societal conditions in the Baltic Sea region affecting the protection of the Baltic Sea and the management of the Baltic Sea resources might change by 2040. The aim is thus to build scenarios that are plausible and relevant narratives or storylines of how the future might unfold (see e.g. Kok et al. 2007; Wade 2012) and to discuss the implications of each scenario to eutrophication, dioxin input, use of Baltic herring and salmon policy.


We use scenarios building as a method to explore the alternative future societal conditions for Baltic Sea environmental governance and use of marine resources. The scenario building methodology used is described in detail by e.g. Wade (2012). The aim is not to extrapolate scenarios from existing conditions, but instead to build plausible storylines or narratives on how the future might unfold. Experts and stakeholders are often engaged into a scenario building process, however, the BONUSS GOHERR scenarios were built based on existing scenarios and literature (see step 2 below). Expert elicitation will be used in WP3 to quantify variables for the decision support model at a later stage. The following six steps were used to develop the scenarios:

  1. Framing the challenges: i.e. why are we building scenarios? What is the focus of our scenarios?
  2. Gathering information: description of current state and identification of relevant global, EU and Baltic Sea level trends, drivers and uncertainties. As a part of this task, the existing scenarios were also reviewed.
  3. Identification of driving forces: i.e. factors that have the potential to bring about significant change in the future. STEEPV-framework was used to identify what are the different social, technological, environmental, economic, political and value-based driving forces?
  4. Defining the future’s critical either/or uncertainties; i.e. the highly uncertain, potentially high-impact development.
  5. Fleshing them out and creating story. The information gathered in steps 2-4 are used here.
  6. Implications of the scenarios to the GOHERR decision support model. Based on the literature review, assumptions on the implications to eutrophication, dioxins, salmon policy and herring use are made.

The focus of the scenarios

The focal questions in this study are: what are the possible future societal development paths in the Baltic Sea region by 2040, and how do these changes affect eutrophication and dioxin releases, use of Baltic herring and salmon policy?

Gathering information

First, a literature review relating to eutrophication, dioxin input, salmon policy and use of herring was carried out. The review focused on the current state, past trends, and possible future projections, and the aim was to identify the key factors and drivers that have the potential to change the situation by 2040. Second, a review on the existing global, EU and regional level scenarios was carried out to examine what kind societal development paths have been created. The following sets of scenarios provide a framework for the exploratory BONUS GOHERR WP3 scenarios: 1) the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios to 2050 (MEA 2005), shared socioeconomic pathways for the 21st century (see e.g. O’Neill et al. 2015), the Global Europe 2050 (European Commission 2012) and the Baltic Sea towards 2030 (WWF 2012). Each of these scenarios present storylines of the possible future societal development paths, but the spatial and temporal scales as well as the main focus of the scenarios vary. Despite this, the main societal changes presented in each set of scenarios showed remarkable similarities. The review focused on the key drivers factors and uncertainties that were identified as most relevant for the BONUS GOHERR scenarios.

Key uncertainties and factors

The state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is strongly affected by human activities in the catchment area and to some extent globally (see e.g. HELCOM 2010), and therefore changes in these activities are the main driving forces behind the possible future changes by 2040. Drawing from this, the two selected key uncertainties for the possible future states of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and the use of Baltic herring catch and salmon policy in 2040 relate to changes in the Baltic Sea environmental governance and human behaviour. The underlying idea here is that policies and technological solutions alone are not enough to achieve environmental sustainability, instead, changes in the production and consumption systems are also needed (see e.g. EEA 2015). The two key uncertainties are whether the regional environmental governance is fragmented or integrated, and whether human impact on the Baltic Sea environment is high or low (see also WWF 2012).

The Baltic Sea regional collaboration has an impressive past and has often been referred to as a success story and model for other transnational environmental protection regimes (Joas et al., 2008; VanDeveer, 2004). However, in the past few years, this collaboration has been hampered by disagreements between the EU member states and Russia about the situation in Ukraine (Etzold and Opitz 2015; Baltic Development Forum 2015; 2014). In addition, the collaboration among the EU member states has also been shaken by the ongoing economic crisis, migration and refugee crisis, heightened insecurity and terrorism threat, and by increased euroskeptism (Archick 2016). The uncertainty here is to what direction and how the EU member states, after the Brexit, decide to develop the union, and whether the member states are able to rebuild mutual trust and collaboration with Russia.

The second uncertainty is whether the behaviour in the Baltic Sea region (and also globally to some extend) will change so that the human impact on the Baltic Sea environment either increases or decreases. The poor environmental status of the Baltic ecosystem is caused by the manner and the intensity with which we use the Baltic Sea and its marine resources, and allow nutrients and hazardous substances to enter the environment from land and at sea (HELCOM, 2010). The magnitude of human impact, i.e. high or low, depends on what people, organisations, businesses and governments do (WWF 2012). Lower human impact entails significant changes in institutions, practices, technologies, policies, lifestyles and thinking (EEA 2015). For the GOHERR scenarios this implies that the state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and the use of the salmon and herring resources depends on how environmental awareness and engagement, consumption and production patterns, policies (willingness to implement stricter targets), technologies and commitment between and across the Baltic Sea countries might change.

The key factors affecting the BONUS GOHERR scenarios include consumption, production, economic development, environmental policy, policy orientation, climate change, collaboration, technological development, environmental awareness and engagement. The basic assumptions are, in all of the scenarios, that increased collaboration and cooperation increases international trade, equity, technological development, and improves the management of global environmental issues. Similarly, environmental awareness and engagement are assumed to have an effect on consumption and production, as well as policies and their implementation.


It should be noted that the scenarios are fictional. They are qualitative descriptions of how the society might change by 2040 and what the implications of such changes are to the state of Baltic Sea environment and the use of marine resources.

Scenario 1: “Transformation to sustainability” (integrated governance and low human impact)

Description of the scenario

In this scenario, sustainability transformation has taken place (Global Environmental Outlook 5, 2012; ISSC and UNESCO 2013; O’Neill et al. 2015). The EU managed to turn the economic and political crisis in 2015 into a platform for deeper collaboration and policy reform (Archick 2016). In line with this, the Baltic Sea countries also increased and tightened collaboration between and within the governments and the private sector (WWF 2012, MEA 2005; O’Neill et al. 2015; Etzold and Opitz 2015). Economic growth per capita has also increased (O’Neill et al. 2015; WWF 2012; European Commission 2012), although the increase is likely to be lower than in the Business-as-usual scenario (MEA 2005). There is a shift towards services-driven and knowledge-based economy (WWF 2012; OECD 2012), where green technology and industries create new jobs, and the economic success is measures by environmental, social and economic sustainability parameters equally (WWF 2012). International cooperation has resulted in increased international trade and fast technological development (MEA 2005). Technology is directed to solve environmental problems (MEA 2005). Agricultural productivity improves and best practices are widely used (O’Neill et al 2015). Similarly, industries experience increased efficiency (WWF 2012). These decrease anthropogenic burden. Information and Communication Technologies increase transparency and environmental awareness throughout the region (European Commission 2012, WWF 2012, O’Neill et al. 2015) and make environmentally and socially harmful behaviour harder to hide (WWF 2012). Strong leadership gives hope for the future and brings about the sense of empowerment throughout the society (WWF 2012). As a result, environmental engagement are high and there is a shared understanding on the consequences of human actions to the environment and the ability to make a difference (WWF 2012; ISSC and UNESCO 2013; European Commission 2012). In this scenario, the eating habits have changed towards low-meat diets and increased demand for sustainable and local food products (MEA 2005; O’Neill et al 2015; WWF 2012; European Commission 2012). There is a strong public support for combatting environmental problems, such as climate change (European Commission 2012; O’Neill et al. 2012). As a result, climate change mitigation and adaptation have been prioritised (WWF 2012). The effects of climate change are minimised as a result of low-impact technologies, but (MEA 2005). The approach to environmental management is proactive (MEA 2005). Environmental management improves locally and globally as tighter regulations are agreed upon (O’Neill et al. 2015). In the Baltic Sea, the existing EU policies and HELCOM recommendations have been implemented and majority of the targets are achieved, in addition to which more stringent and jointly developed goals are set (WWF 2012). As a result, the environmental conditions are improving slowly (MEA 2005, O’Neill et al. 2015; WWF 2012).

Implications to the state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, management of Baltic salmon and herring, and the use of herring catch

The state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem has improved. Reduction of nutrient levels in the Baltic Sea is detected and massive algal blooms are less frequent. However, the reduction rate is slow due slow recovery time and the increased rainfall and riverine flow in the northern Baltic Sea. Hazardous substances, including dioxins, are also gradually flushed out. The dioxin levels in Baltic herring are below or close to the maximum allowable level. Fish stocks are allowed to recover to levels, which makes maximum sustainable yield possible and increases the total catches of wild caught fish (World Bank, 2013). The management of Baltic salmon is carried out through the CFP and the multiannual plan for Baltic salmon and sea trout, which provide the framework for setting the TAC, quotas and fishing restrictions. The catches of salmon by commercial fisheries has stabilized at low level, while the share of recreational catch increases slightly. Fishermen’s commitment is increased as a result of collaborative management processes (Haapasaari et al. 2007). Central and Western Baltic herring stocks have rebounded from the collapse after 1980s and all the Baltic herring stock are utilised at the MSY. The use of the Baltic herring catch for food increases as Baltic herring, at least most stocks, are no longer likely to exceed the maximum allowable dioxin levels, and can therefore be placed on the EU market. A regional proactive management plan for the use of catch has increased the capacity of the fishing fleets to fish herring for food and through product development and joint marketing, have increased consumer demand for Baltic herring (Pihlajamäki et al. forthcoming). The demand for herring increases in the region, but the markets in the EU and outside EU are substantial. The use of fish processing waste in fishmeal and oil production decreased the competition between different uses of the raw material (World Bank, 2013).

Scenario 2: “Business-as-usual ” (Integrated governance and high human impact)

Description of the scenario

Similarly to the first scenario, the solution to the 2015 crisis in this scenario is more collaboration and deeper integration of governance and policies (WWF 2012; MEA 2005). EU as well as the Baltic Sea region managed to survive the crisis. However, collaboration between governments and businesses is driven by objectives relating to regional competitiveness, job creation and economic growth, while environmental and social objectives are secondary (WWF 2012; MEA 2005; O’Neill et al. 2012). Social, economic, environmental and technological trends follow the historical pattern (WWF 2012; O’Neill et al. 2015). Environmental goods and services are treated as externalities, which has increase human impact further (WWF 2012). Economic growth is relatively high, but this growth depends on the accelerated use of the resource base (WWF 2012) and the income distribution remains uneven (O’Neill et al. 2015). The society is driven by top-down initiatives and governance, while the societal engagement and commitment remains low (WWF 2012). Consumerism continues to prevail, but the demand is driven by low prices and therefore the demand for environmentally friendly products is relatively low (WWF 2012). Increasing prosperity increases demand for meat, which in turn expands the land areas used for agriculture (European Commission 2012; O’Neill et al. 2015). Aquaculture expands rapidly (MEA 2005; World Bank 2013; FAO 2014). Climate summits have failed to deliver anything substantial and many people have simply given up on the hope to save the environment (WWF 2012). The public support to addressing climate change is limited (European Commission 2012), which makes mitigation and adaption more challenging (O’Neill et al. 2015). The general strategy towards environmental problems is reactive and depends on technological development and the capacity to adapt (MEA 2005; WWF 2012). Although investments and hopes are directed towards engineering solutions for environmental problems, some technological development might also have adverse environmental affects (MEA 2005). In addition, technological development and emergence of low-impact technologies is in the agricultural sector is slower than in the Sustainable transition scenario (O’Neill et al. 2015; MEA 2005). The collaboration enabled EU countries and Russia to rebuild trust and has also reopened the markets (Baltic Development Forum, 2015; Etzold and Opitz 2015). The commitment to sustainable development is weak (O’Neill et al. 2015) and instead, short-term interests prevail and therefore many of the environmental commitments are not implemented (WWF 2012).

Implications to the state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, management of Baltic salmon and herring, and the use of herring catch

The state of the Baltic Sea ecosystems shows no signs of recovery, instead, problems relating to eutrophication and hazardous substances prevail. Technical solutions are developed, but due to the extent of the problems, they fail to deliver substantial difference. The stocks of Baltic herring and salmon are managed though multiannual plans and fishing pressure is at the maximum sustainable yield, however, the deteriorating state of the environment, namely increased oxygen deficiencies and changes in salinity and temperature, have an adverse effect on the state of the stocks. As a result, the commercial catches of salmon continue to decrease and many fishermen move to other activities. The demand for top predatory species, such as salmon and cod remains high, while the demand for herring decreased further as a result of demographic changes. Aquaculture plays a key role in the regional food security strategy and most of the herring catch are used for fish meal and oil production in the region. In order to increase self-sufficiency on fish product, the use of Baltic herring from the southern parts of the Baltic Sea where the dioxin contents are not likely to exceed the maximum allowable level, are prioritised for human consumption. In the absence of the demand in many of the Baltic Sea countries, majority of the herring intended for direct human consumption are exported to Russia.

Scenario 3“Inequality” (Fragmented governance, low human impact)

Description of the scenario

In this scenario, the EU is still exists, but it is much weaker than in 2015 (Archick 2016). The crisis has left a mark on regional collaboration from which the nations have not been able to fully recover from. The Baltic Sea countries attempted briefly to continue collaboration on environmental issues on the forums such as HELCOM and the CBSS, but owing to the prevailing mistrust, these attempts stopped shortly (Etzold and Opitz 2015). There is no common agenda for the region, instead the focus is on keeping the EU together (WWF 2012; Archick 2016). The region is characterised by inequality and social stratification across and within the countries (WWF 2012; O’Neill et al. 2016; MEA 2005). Most of the governance arrangements from the 2015 might still be in place, but in the absence of common vision and leadership, new initiatives and policy reforms are few and apart (WWF 2012). The focus and ambition of environmental policies also varies as management is organised at local level or bilaterally, if at all (WWF 2012). The attitudes towards environmental problems, however, are mainly proactive (MEA 2005). The commitments to the old agreed targets and goals vary between countries and sectors. Economic development ranges from low to medium between the countries (O’Neill et al. 2015) and the income distribution remains unequal (MEA 2005). Similarly the speed of technological development is highly uneven across the region, but generally slower than in the first two scenarios as a result of restricted international cooperation (O’Neill et al. 2015; MEA 2005). Despite this, efficiency and productivity increase somewhat (MEA 2005; O’Neill et al. 2015), and some industries lead the way towards sustainable practices, while laggards continue to exist (WWF 2012). Environmental awareness, however, is high (WWF 2012 and MEA 2005) and new forms of environmental governance stem from peoples frustration on the inability of the governments to act (Tynkkynen et al. 2014). This leads to increased societal mobilisation across the region and emergence of local and bilateral bottom-up initiatives, e.g. between companies, NGOs, fishermen associations etc. (WWF 2012). Instead of materialism and consumerism, people value time, personal health and relationships, as well as healthy environment (WWF 2012). More attention is paid to the health effects of the food consumed, which lowers the consumption of meat and increases the consumption of fish and vegetables (WWF 2012). The demand for locally and sustainably produced affordable food products is high, while higher-value food is mainly consumed by the elites (MEA 2005; WWF 2012; O’Neill et al. 2015). Therefore the use of smaller and traditionally less valuable fish for food increases (WWF 2012). Due to weak international cooperation, climate change is not adequately addressed and temperatures continue to increase (MEA 2005; WWF 2012).

Implications to the state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, management of Baltic salmon and herring, and the use of herring catch

Progress towards a healthier Baltic Sea is slow. Majority of the environmental protection targets are not fully met. Eutrophication and hazardous substances remains a major problem, although the nutrient and dioxins levels continue to decrease slowly. There is no clear picture of the whole ecosystem status, but fishing pressure is controlled by local level initiatives and bi-lateral agreements. In addition, consumer demand has shifted from the over-fished top predators, such as salmon and cod, to smaller currently under-fished and/or less demanded species. The role of aquaculture in fish production remains high.

The commercial catches of salmon have decreased further as the general attitudes favour recreational fishing, which has also resulted in decreased demand. Owing to the increased demand for lower trophic fish, many of the salmon fishermen have changed their target species. The herring catches have increased slightly, but the availability of herring suitable for human consumption remains low due to both, dioxin levels that remain above the maximum allowable limit in the northern Baltic Sea and the poor capacity to fish for food. The use of the catch varies between countries. In Estonia, for example, where the whole catch has been traditionally used for human consumption, there is no significant change in this respect, but in Finland, Sweden and Denmark, herring fishing is predominantly feed directed. The local initiatives are not enough make significant changes to the proactive management system, the fisheries and the whole production chain. The demand for herring outside the EU for human consumption decreases as the awareness on the dioxin problem increases.

Scenario 4: “Transformation to protectionism” (Fragmented governance, high human impact)

Description of the scenario

This scenario is driven by weakened security and mistrust (Etzold and Opitz 2015; WWF 2012; O’Neill et al. 2015; European Commission 2012; MEA 2005). There have been no attempts to re-establish mutual trust and revitalise collaboration. The crisis around 2015 led to more severe conflicts and raised security related issues on top of the national agendas. Eventually, a transformation towards nationalism began triggered by the EU disintegration which eventually led to a complete dissolution of the EU (Archick 2016). The weak and uneven international collaboration (O’Neill et al. 2015) has increased competition between the countries (MEA 2005), which in turn has led to a lower food prices at the expense of the environment (WWF 2012). The focus is on economic growth at any cost (WWF 2012), but compared to the other scenarios, the growth is slower and uneven (O’Neill et al. 2015; MEA 2005). Technological development is also low and therefore the production practices lack efficiency and increase anthropogenic pressure on the environment (O’Neill et al. 2015; WWF 2012; MEA 2005). While the policies focus on security, the environmental issues are low on the agenda and the responses towards environmental problems are reactive (O’Neill et al. 2015; WWF 2012; MEA 2005). Each country aims to secure and protect their own interests and collaboration is low. Existing policies are replaced by national policies, but level of ambition varies significantly. The global emissions are lower than in the Business-as-usual and Inequality scenarios, due to stalled industrial and technological development in the developing world (MEA 2005), but high challenges relating to mitigation and adaptation combined with low ability to act (O.Neill et al. 2015, the people are fed up with the climate change debate (WWF 2012) and the issue is no longer addressed (European Commission 2012). In general, environmental awareness and engagement are low as people have lost faith in their abilities to make a difference and improve the state of the environment (WWF 2012; O’Neill et al. 2015). Consumption patterns remain material intensive, but market barriers due to the political situation increase the pressure to produce more cereal, meat and fish locally, which means that agriculture intensifies and fishing pressure increases (MEA 2005; O’Neill et al. 2015). This leads to a global food crisis (European Commission 2012).

Implications to the state of the Baltic Sea ecosystem, management of Baltic salmon and herring, and the use of herring catch

The state of the Baltic Sea environment deteriorates. Owing to the increased anthropogenic pressure from the catchment area and by climate change, hydrological changes relating to salinity, temperature and oxygen deficit as well as eutrophication accelerate. The level of hazardous substances also increases as emission sources are not adequately addressed. These changes have dramatic consequences on the whole ecosystem. The stocks of Baltic herring are less sensitive to these changes (Vuorinen et al. 2015), but many of the wild salmon stocks are under great pressure.

Increased fishing pressure weakens the Baltic fish populations further. Owing to the combined effects of these bottom-up and top-down pressures on the fish populations, commercial salmon fisheries disappears almost completely from the Baltic Sea, although restocking keeps small scale fisheries going. Many of the Baltic herring stocks are also fished above the maximum sustainable yield and total catches are declining. Owing to the growing dioxin levels detected in herring, majority of the catch is used for aquaculture, which is the main strategy in many of the Baltic Sea countries to increase self-sufficiency regarding fish and seafood.

Further work

The GOHERR scenarios will be further developed in WP3 especially in relation to the deliverables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5. In addition, further work is needed to link these scenarios to the decision support model. The underlying idea is that these scenarios provide a plausible explanation for the direction of change regarding the different variables (e.g. eutrophication, dioxin input, herring use and salmon policy), but the quantification of these changes will be based on expert workshops and/or consultations. At the moment, the structure of the decision support model is still under development. This means that there are still some question marks relating to the variables used, namely whether the role of eutrophication is significant enough to keep it in the model and what the actual variables for the herring use and salmon policy are. The quantification of the variables will be done after decisions are made regarding which variable to include in the decision support model.


Archick, K., 2016. The European Union: Current Challenges and Future Prospects. Congressional Research Service. February 15, 2016.

Baltic Development Forum, 2015. State of the Region report. The Top of Europe – Striving for Direction in a Complex Environment. Authors: Ketels, C. and Pedersen, H.

Baltic Development Forum, 2014. Political State of the Region Report 2014. Baltic Sea Neighbourhoods – A Mega-Region in Progress? Published by Baltic Development Forum in Copenhagen.

EEA, 2015, The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

Etzold, T. and Opitz, C., 2015. The Baltic Sea Region: Challenges and Game Changers. A Discussion Paper prepared for Baltic Development Forum by the Deep Water think-tank. 17th Baltic Development Forum Summit, Copenhagen, 23 November 2015.

European Commission, 2015. The EU Fish Market. 2015 Edition. Published by Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the European Commission. http://www.eumofa.eu/documents/20178/66003/EN_The+EU+fish+market_Ed+2015.pdf/4cbd01f2-cd49-4bd1-adae-8dbb773d8519

European Commission, 2012. Global Europe 2050.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 2016. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division. FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2014). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Opportunities and challenges. Rome, 2014.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2006). World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050. Prospects for Food, Nutrition, Agriculture and Major Commodity Groups. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

Friendland, E., Neumann., T. and Schernewski, G. 2012. Climate change and the Baltic Sea action plan: Model simulations on the future of the western Baltic Sea. Journal of Marine Systems 105-108 (2012) 175-786

GEO5, 2012. Global Environment Outlook. Environment for the future we want. United Nations Environment Programme.

Haapasaari P., Michielsens C.G.J., Karjalainen T.P., Reinikainen K. and Kuikka S. 2007. Management measures and fishers’ commitment to sustainable exploitation: a case study of Atlantic salmon fisheries in the Baltic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 825-833.

Hautakangas, S., Ollikainen, M., Aarnos, K. & Rantanen, P. 2014. Nutrient Abatement Potential and Abatement Costs of Waste Water Treatment Plants in the Baltic Sea Region. Ambio. 43, 3, s. 352-360.

HELCOM, 2014. Eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea 2007-2011 – A concise thematic assessment. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 143

HELCOM, 2013. Climate change in the Baltic Sea Area: HELCOM thematic assessment in 2013. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 137.

HELCOM, 2011. Salmon and Sea Trout Populations and Rivers in the Baltic Sea – HELCOM assessment of salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta) populations and habitats in rivers flowing to the Baltic Sea. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 126A.

HELCOM, 2009. Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea – An integrated thematic assessment on biodiversity and nature conservation in the Baltic Sea. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 116B

HELCOM 2010. Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea. HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 122.

Hites, R. A., (1990). Environmental Behavior of Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans. Acc. Chem. Res., 23(5), pp.194–201.

Huttunen, I., Lehtonen, H., Huttunen, M., Piirainen, V., Korppoo, M., Veijalainen, N., Viitasalo, M., and Vehviläinen, B. 2015. Effects of climate change and agricultural adaptation on nutrient loading from Finnish catchments to the Baltic Sea. Science of the Total Environment 529 (2015) 168-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.055

Illing, B., Moyano, M., Hufnagl, M. and Peck, M.A. 2015. Projected habitat loss for Atlantic herring in the Baltic Sea. Marine Environmental Research 113 (2016) 164-173

ICES. 2016. Report of the Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group (WGBAST), 30 March–6 April 2016, Klaipeda, Lithuania. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:09.257 pp.

ICES (2015). Report of the Baltic Sea Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS). 14-21 April 2015, headquarters, Copenhangen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:10.

Illing, B., Moyano, M., Hufnagl, M. and Peck, M.A. 2015. Projected habitat loss for Atlantic herring in the Baltic Sea. Marine Environmental Research 113 (2016) 164-173

ISSC and UNESCO (2013). World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments, OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing, Paris

Joas, Marko; Jahn Detlef and Kristine Kern (2008), “Governance in the Baltic Sea Region: Balancing States, Cities and People”, in Joas, Marko, Jahn, Detlef and Kristine Kern (eds.) Governing a Common Sea. Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region. London: Earthscan, pp. 3–15

Kok K., R. Biggs and Zurek M. 2007. Methods for developing multiscale participatory scenarios: insights from southern Africa and Europe. Ecology and Society 13(1): 8.

Meier, H.E.M, Hordoir, R., Andersson, H.C., Dieterich, C., Eilola, K., Gustafsson, B.G., Höglund, A., and Schimanke, S. 2012. Modeling the combined impact of changing climate and changing nutrient loads on the Baltic Sea environment in an ensemble of transient simulations for 1961-2099. Clim.Dyn. (2012) 39:2421-2441.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Island Press. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Scenarios.html

Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2015. Statistics database. Fish used for human consumption (kg/person/year). Updated 12/29/2015. Available at: http://stat.luke.fi/.

Nechiporuk, D., M. Nozhenko, and E. Belokurova. 2011. Russia—a special actor in Baltic Sea environmental governance. In Governing the blue-green Baltic Sea, ed. M. Pihlajamäki, and N. Tynkkynen, 44–54. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

OECD (2012), OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en

O’Neill, et al., 2015. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environ. Change (2015)

Rasanen, Tuomas and Laakkonen, Simo (2008), “Institutionalization of an International Environmental Policy Regime: the Helsinki Convention, Finland and the Cold War”, in Joas, Marko; Jahn, Detlef and Kristine Kern (eds.), Governing the Common Sea: Environmental policies in the Baltic Sea Region, London: Earthscan, pp. 43–59

Teittinen (in prep). The Baltic Sea dioxin problem: expert views. (University of Helsinki, Master’s thesis in preparation)

Tynkkynen, N., Schönach, P., Pihlajamäki, M., and Nechiporuk, D., (2014). The Governance of the Mitigation of the Baltic Sea Eutrophication: Exploring the Challenges of the Formal Governing System. AMBIO 2014, 43:105-114

VanDeveer, Stacy D. (2004), Ordering Environments: Regions in European International Environmental Cooperation, in Jasanoff Sheila and Marybeth Long Martello (eds), Earthly Politics. Local and Global in Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 309–334

Varjopuro, R., Andrulewicz, E., Blenckner, T., Dolch, T., Heiskanen, A-S., Pihlajamäki, M., Steiner Brandt, U., Valman, M., Gee, K., Potts, T., and Psuty, I., (2014). Coping with persistent environmental problems – Systemic delays in reducing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Ecology and Society 19(4):48.

Vuorinen, I., Hänninen, J., Rajasilta, M., Laine, P., Eklund, J., Montesino-Pouzols, F. Corona, F., Junker, K., Meier, H.E.M, Dippner, J.W. 2015. Corrigendum to “Scenario simulations of future salinity and ecological consequences in the Baltic Sea and adjacent North Sea areas – Implications for environmental monitoring” [Ecol. Indic. 50 (2015) 196–205]. Ecological Indicators, Volume 53, June 2015, Page 294.

Wade. W. 2012. Scenario Planning: A Field Guide to the Future. Hoboken, US: Wiley, 2012.

World Bank, 2013. Fish to 2030. Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture. Agriculture and Environmental Services Discussion Paper 03. World Bank Report Number 83177-GLB.

See also

Goherr Research project 2015-2018: Integrated governance of Baltic herring and salmon stocks involving stakeholders

GOHERR logo NEW.png Goherr public website


WP1 Management · WP2 Sociocultural use, value and goverrnance of Baltic salmon and herring · WP3 Scenarios and management objectives · WP4 Linking fish physiology to food production and bioaccumulation of dioxin · WP5 Linking the health of the Baltic Sea with health of humans: Dioxin · WP6 Building a decision support model for integrated governance · WP7 Dissemination

Other pages in Opasnet

GOHERR assessment · Goherr flyer · Goherr scenarios · Relevant literature: policy · dioxins · values


Exposure- response functions of dioxins · Fish consumption in Sweden · POP concentrations in Baltic sea fish · Exposure-response functions of Omega3 fatty acids

Methods Health impact assessment · OpasnetBaseUtils‎ · Modelling in Opasnet
Other assessments Benefit-risk assessment of Baltic herring · Benefit-risk assessment on farmed salmon · Benefit-risk assessment of methyl mercury and omega-3 fatty acids in fish · Benefit-risk assessment of fish consumption for Beneris · Benefit-risk assessment of Baltic herring (in Finnish)
Bonus logo.png
Eu logo.png

http://www.bonusportal.org/ http://www.bonusprojects.org/bonusprojects