156
stakeholder participation , deliberative processes and adaptive governance (Hassler
et al. 2013 ).
The three above-mentioned trends all concern changes in government-centred
structures, programmes and approaches, which in turn introduce new conditions for
environmental governance structures and processes in the region. Fourth, an ongoing transnationalisation from below can be observed, which sets forth new conditions for both environmental governance of the Baltic Sea and refl exive governance.
Various actors from different countries have developed forms and capacity for
much tighter interaction and collaboration. Such interaction is facilitated by
umbrella organisations for municipalities (e.g. Union of the Baltic Cities), or environmental NGOs (e.g. Coalition Clean Baltic ), or by already transnational environmental NGOs such as WWF that connect different offi ces and establish new ones.
6
By such increasing transnational collaboration and capacity building, business
organisations, NGOs, municipalities and other non-state actors strengthen their
abilities (viz. organisational, cognitive and other types) to participate effectively in
environmental governance. In addition, they are able to increasingly by-pass
national governments and approach EU authorities directly (sometimes through
European-level umbrella organisations, such as the European Environmental
Bureau), a policy track which they often fi nd to be more effi cient.
The four broad trends towards increased interaction among various stakeholders
in the area of marine governance in the Baltic Sea region, the more institutionalised
form and impact of EU governing and the evolving consensus on adopting systemic
rather than particular approaches to environmental management add up to substantial changes in the preconditions for further marine governance improvements in
line with EAM. In order to analyse these trends more thoroughly, we examine them
from the perspective of refl exive governance.
7.4 Refl exive Governance
Refl exivity basically means self-reference. The concept of refl exive governance
accordingly points to the need for strategic thinking on how to build institutions and
governance modes that are, on the one hand, forward-looking and able to cope with
uncertainties and other reasons for complex problems and, on the other hand,
backward- looking and entailing self-critical scrutiny of the previous and current
mode of governance (Voss et al. 2006a ). Refl exivity entails refl ecting upon the very
governance process itself including its conditions: i.e. the extent to which existing
boundaries, constitutions, discourses, policies, regulations , science-policy interactions and organisational arrangements produce and reproduce this generation of
environmental problems . Refl exive governance thus includes a continuous selforiented examination of positive and negative outcomes (substantive dimensions;
6 See Boström et al. ( 2015 ), Kern and Löffelsend ( 2004 ) and Van Deever ( 2011 ). See also Jönsson
et al. ( 2016 ).
M. Boström et al.
stakeholder participation , deliberative processes and adaptive governance (Hassler
et al. 2013 ).
The three above-mentioned trends all concern changes in government-centred
structures, programmes and approaches, which in turn introduce new conditions for
environmental governance structures and processes in the region. Fourth, an ongoing transnationalisation from below can be observed, which sets forth new conditions for both environmental governance of the Baltic Sea and refl exive governance.
Various actors from different countries have developed forms and capacity for
much tighter interaction and collaboration. Such interaction is facilitated by
umbrella organisations for municipalities (e.g. Union of the Baltic Cities), or environmental NGOs (e.g. Coalition Clean Baltic ), or by already transnational environmental NGOs such as WWF that connect different offi ces and establish new ones.
6
By such increasing transnational collaboration and capacity building, business
organisations, NGOs, municipalities and other non-state actors strengthen their
abilities (viz. organisational, cognitive and other types) to participate effectively in
environmental governance. In addition, they are able to increasingly by-pass
national governments and approach EU authorities directly (sometimes through
European-level umbrella organisations, such as the European Environmental
Bureau), a policy track which they often fi nd to be more effi cient.
The four broad trends towards increased interaction among various stakeholders
in the area of marine governance in the Baltic Sea region, the more institutionalised
form and impact of EU governing and the evolving consensus on adopting systemic
rather than particular approaches to environmental management add up to substantial changes in the preconditions for further marine governance improvements in
line with EAM. In order to analyse these trends more thoroughly, we examine them
from the perspective of refl exive governance.
7.4 Refl exive Governance
Refl exivity basically means self-reference. The concept of refl exive governance
accordingly points to the need for strategic thinking on how to build institutions and
governance modes that are, on the one hand, forward-looking and able to cope with
uncertainties and other reasons for complex problems and, on the other hand,
backward- looking and entailing self-critical scrutiny of the previous and current
mode of governance (Voss et al. 2006a ). Refl exivity entails refl ecting upon the very
governance process itself including its conditions: i.e. the extent to which existing
boundaries, constitutions, discourses, policies, regulations , science-policy interactions and organisational arrangements produce and reproduce this generation of
environmental problems . Refl exive governance thus includes a continuous selforiented examination of positive and negative outcomes (substantive dimensions;
6 See Boström et al. ( 2015 ), Kern and Löffelsend ( 2004 ) and Van Deever ( 2011 ). See also Jönsson
et al. ( 2016 ).
M. Boström et al.