157
sometimes understood as single-loop learning ) as well as on how governance itself
is related to these outcomes (structural/procedural dimension; sometimes understood as double-loop learning).
7
We apply this theoretical framework to shed light on our fi ve focused cases of
marine environmental governance. We ask if relevant arrangements and discourses
have been developed that enable such refl exivity. A number of factors may hinder
or facilitate such refl exivity but we do not attempt an exhaustive analysis. Based on
the existing work on refl exive governance, we develop an ideal type that consists of
three elements that appear essential for refl exive governance and which guide our
analysis of the Baltic Sea marine environmental governance arrangements. These
elements are:
1. Acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity
2. Holistic approach in terms of scales, sectors and actors
3. Path dependency and incremental policy-making
The fi rst element is acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity . Refl exive
governance involves recognition that global and local sustainability problems are
extremely complex, uncertain and ambiguous and need to be handled as such.
Problem handling requires transgressing existing cognitive and institutional boundaries (Voss and Kemp 2006 ). Refl exive governance thus stresses that problems
often cannot be ‘solved’, in the strict sense of the word, only handled. New problems or trade-offs tend to appear after decisions are made. Decisions tend to involve
compromises. Surprises appear over and over again. The crucial question is if governance has any potential to continuously respond to such surprises.
The concept refl exive governance relates to Ulrich Beck’s theory of the world
risk society and refl exive modernisation ( 1992 , 1994 ). Beck connects late modern
risks to how societal spheres and institutions (technology, science, politics, the
state, the economy) in the ‘simple’ or ‘fi rst’ modernity operated according to the
Enlightenment Project. Instrumental, rational problem-solving during ‘simple’
modernity relied on a cognitive and institutional approach in which uncertainty,
complexity and ambiguity were disregarded. Problem-solving was specifi c and
straightforward – based only on single-loop learning – and the goal was maximising
the control of social and economic development. However, this approach inevitably
leads to many unintended, negative consequences, at fi rst called ‘side effects’. As
these are multiplied and increasingly seen as unresolved within traditional instrumental approaches, a refl exive turn emerges or in Beck’s words refl exive modernisation (or ‘world risk society’).
The second element is a holistic approach in terms of scales, sectors and actors.
As problem handling requires the possibility to transgress existing discursive and
7 Metaphorically, single-loop learning is sometimes compared with a thermostat, which continuously makes adjustments based on incoming information (it is too hot), whereas double-loop learning is involved in searching for why a problem appears in the fi rst place (why is it too hot). The
second type of learning involves asking questions about the less apparent assumptions, values or
governing factors underlying the system.
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…
sometimes understood as single-loop learning ) as well as on how governance itself
is related to these outcomes (structural/procedural dimension; sometimes understood as double-loop learning).
7
We apply this theoretical framework to shed light on our fi ve focused cases of
marine environmental governance. We ask if relevant arrangements and discourses
have been developed that enable such refl exivity. A number of factors may hinder
or facilitate such refl exivity but we do not attempt an exhaustive analysis. Based on
the existing work on refl exive governance, we develop an ideal type that consists of
three elements that appear essential for refl exive governance and which guide our
analysis of the Baltic Sea marine environmental governance arrangements. These
elements are:
1. Acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity
2. Holistic approach in terms of scales, sectors and actors
3. Path dependency and incremental policy-making
The fi rst element is acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity . Refl exive
governance involves recognition that global and local sustainability problems are
extremely complex, uncertain and ambiguous and need to be handled as such.
Problem handling requires transgressing existing cognitive and institutional boundaries (Voss and Kemp 2006 ). Refl exive governance thus stresses that problems
often cannot be ‘solved’, in the strict sense of the word, only handled. New problems or trade-offs tend to appear after decisions are made. Decisions tend to involve
compromises. Surprises appear over and over again. The crucial question is if governance has any potential to continuously respond to such surprises.
The concept refl exive governance relates to Ulrich Beck’s theory of the world
risk society and refl exive modernisation ( 1992 , 1994 ). Beck connects late modern
risks to how societal spheres and institutions (technology, science, politics, the
state, the economy) in the ‘simple’ or ‘fi rst’ modernity operated according to the
Enlightenment Project. Instrumental, rational problem-solving during ‘simple’
modernity relied on a cognitive and institutional approach in which uncertainty,
complexity and ambiguity were disregarded. Problem-solving was specifi c and
straightforward – based only on single-loop learning – and the goal was maximising
the control of social and economic development. However, this approach inevitably
leads to many unintended, negative consequences, at fi rst called ‘side effects’. As
these are multiplied and increasingly seen as unresolved within traditional instrumental approaches, a refl exive turn emerges or in Beck’s words refl exive modernisation (or ‘world risk society’).
The second element is a holistic approach in terms of scales, sectors and actors.
As problem handling requires the possibility to transgress existing discursive and
7 Metaphorically, single-loop learning is sometimes compared with a thermostat, which continuously makes adjustments based on incoming information (it is too hot), whereas double-loop learning is involved in searching for why a problem appears in the fi rst place (why is it too hot). The
second type of learning involves asking questions about the less apparent assumptions, values or
governing factors underlying the system.
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…