150
7.1 Introduction
Our perceptions of what constitutes adequate marine environmental governance
have undergone substantial changes during the last decades. From having been
fi rmly based on biophysical problem framings , scientifi c risk assessments and endof- pipe solutions, integrated ecosystem approaches to management, stakeholder
participation and adaptive governance are now what is on the table.
Marine environmental governance of the Baltic Sea has furthermore become
more multifaceted than before, involving not only governments, international government organisations (IGOs) and other public bodies but increasingly also transnational networks of public authorities at substate levels, sector organisations, industry
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Hassler et al. 2011 ). The inclusion of
non-public actors has to a considerable extent co-evolved with increased use of
economic instruments such as differentiated levies, taxes and subsidies aimed at
changing actors’ behaviour through altered economic incentives (Hassler et al.
2011 ). Moreover, several scholars regard various forms of interaction between
international conventions and EU directives as important parts of contemporary
environmental governance (Oberthür and Gehring 2006 ; Stokke 2001 ; Young
2002 ).
Adding to the complexity of environmental governance, there is an increasing
understanding among scholars that risk, uncertainty and ambiguity are key factors
of the problems at hand (Gilek et al. 2011 ; Hassler et al. 2013 ; Lidskog et al. 2009 ;
Renn 2008 ; Voss et al. 2006a ; Walker and Shove 2007 ). Because of the systemic
nature of marine ecosystems , a holistic approach needs to complement, and probably sometimes replace, the traditional emphasis on single species and tightly circumscribed risk assessments that exclude all except formal experts from assessment
and management (Hassler et al. 2011 , 2013 ). In many cases it is more reasonable to
talk about uncertainty than risk (as conventionally understood within risk assessment), as limited knowledge in combination with stochastic processes makes estimation of probabilities for different outcomes diffi cult or not even possible (Hassler
et al. 2011 ). Moreover, the notion of ambiguity implies that there is no obvious
normative standpoint about preferable actions that comes from a particular risk
assessment. Different stakeholders may have different interpretations of the perceived risks based on varied ethical, religious and political frames of reference.
1
This chapter analyses the governance structures of the marine environment of the
Baltic Sea. The primary goal is to assess whether current developments of the
governance structures have a potential to take into account requirements implied by
an ecosystem approach to management (EAM). When we talk about governance
structures, we refer to the regulatory frameworks and institutions governing the
marine environment of the Baltic Sea. The origin and evolution of large changes in
governance structures is of particular interest. These changes are often initiated by
1 Ambiguity or ambivalence refers to an object or event that simultaneously can belong to two
contrasting categories (e.g. simultaneously loving and hating someone). A risk, such as driving fast
or eating tasty but unhealthy food, often has both positive and negative denotations.
M. Boström et al.
7.1 Introduction
Our perceptions of what constitutes adequate marine environmental governance
have undergone substantial changes during the last decades. From having been
fi rmly based on biophysical problem framings , scientifi c risk assessments and endof- pipe solutions, integrated ecosystem approaches to management, stakeholder
participation and adaptive governance are now what is on the table.
Marine environmental governance of the Baltic Sea has furthermore become
more multifaceted than before, involving not only governments, international government organisations (IGOs) and other public bodies but increasingly also transnational networks of public authorities at substate levels, sector organisations, industry
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Hassler et al. 2011 ). The inclusion of
non-public actors has to a considerable extent co-evolved with increased use of
economic instruments such as differentiated levies, taxes and subsidies aimed at
changing actors’ behaviour through altered economic incentives (Hassler et al.
2011 ). Moreover, several scholars regard various forms of interaction between
international conventions and EU directives as important parts of contemporary
environmental governance (Oberthür and Gehring 2006 ; Stokke 2001 ; Young
2002 ).
Adding to the complexity of environmental governance, there is an increasing
understanding among scholars that risk, uncertainty and ambiguity are key factors
of the problems at hand (Gilek et al. 2011 ; Hassler et al. 2013 ; Lidskog et al. 2009 ;
Renn 2008 ; Voss et al. 2006a ; Walker and Shove 2007 ). Because of the systemic
nature of marine ecosystems , a holistic approach needs to complement, and probably sometimes replace, the traditional emphasis on single species and tightly circumscribed risk assessments that exclude all except formal experts from assessment
and management (Hassler et al. 2011 , 2013 ). In many cases it is more reasonable to
talk about uncertainty than risk (as conventionally understood within risk assessment), as limited knowledge in combination with stochastic processes makes estimation of probabilities for different outcomes diffi cult or not even possible (Hassler
et al. 2011 ). Moreover, the notion of ambiguity implies that there is no obvious
normative standpoint about preferable actions that comes from a particular risk
assessment. Different stakeholders may have different interpretations of the perceived risks based on varied ethical, religious and political frames of reference.
1
This chapter analyses the governance structures of the marine environment of the
Baltic Sea. The primary goal is to assess whether current developments of the
governance structures have a potential to take into account requirements implied by
an ecosystem approach to management (EAM). When we talk about governance
structures, we refer to the regulatory frameworks and institutions governing the
marine environment of the Baltic Sea. The origin and evolution of large changes in
governance structures is of particular interest. These changes are often initiated by
1 Ambiguity or ambivalence refers to an object or event that simultaneously can belong to two
contrasting categories (e.g. simultaneously loving and hating someone). A risk, such as driving fast
or eating tasty but unhealthy food, often has both positive and negative denotations.
M. Boström et al.