159
7.5 Analysis of Refl exivity in Baltic Sea Environmental
Governance
7.5.1 Acknowledgement of Uncertainty and Ambivalence
Acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity includes a willingness to actively
explore uncertainty and ambiguity and develop preparedness for unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are impossible to eliminate completely and
therefore have to be prepared for. This preparedness has to be both discursive and
institutional. EAM and refl exive governance acknowledge an open-ended, experimental and learning -oriented approach, ‘in the course of modulating ongoing developments, rather than towards complete knowledge and maximisation of control’
(Voss and Kemp 2006 : 7). Acknowledging uncertainty is thus something more than
just a matter of trying to close information or knowledge gaps (Lidskog et al. 2009 :
131–2). Refl exive governance entails an awareness that current modes of risk governance potentially could produce new side effects, new risks. Institutional and
technological structures need to be forward-looking and adaptive, allow for trialand- error learning and experiment with new innovations (Grin 2006 ; Kemp and
Loorbach 2006 ).
While interviewees in the fi ve case studies in general acknowledged the complexities and uncertainties surrounding environmental risks (regarding causes and
effects), they seldom used tools to systematically take into account uncertainties
and ambiguity ; particularly those that stem from combined risks (e.g. cocktail
effects regarding chemical risks). Our analysis showed that environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea, in general, does not yet acknowledge these combined
risks adequately. Risk assessment tends to go on as usual in the various sectors
(Hassler et al. 2011 , 2013 ). In none of the cases did we fi nd any specifi c mechanisms, strategies or guidelines for systematically dealing with uncertainty and
ambivalence. While the precautionary principle is increasingly invoked as a means
to cope with uncertainty, actors rarely refl ect upon how this principle should be
implemented in practice. Having said that, what the case studies also show is that
there is at least a growing recognition among scientists and other stakeholders that
science alone cannot provide answers to all questions (see also Linke et al. 2016 ).
7.5.2 Holistic Approach in Terms of Scales, Sectors and Actors
A holistic approach entails preparedness for (1) multi-scale, (2) multi-sector and (3)
multi-actor approaches to problem handling.
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…
7.5 Analysis of Refl exivity in Baltic Sea Environmental
Governance
7.5.1 Acknowledgement of Uncertainty and Ambivalence
Acknowledgement of uncertainty and ambiguity includes a willingness to actively
explore uncertainty and ambiguity and develop preparedness for unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are impossible to eliminate completely and
therefore have to be prepared for. This preparedness has to be both discursive and
institutional. EAM and refl exive governance acknowledge an open-ended, experimental and learning -oriented approach, ‘in the course of modulating ongoing developments, rather than towards complete knowledge and maximisation of control’
(Voss and Kemp 2006 : 7). Acknowledging uncertainty is thus something more than
just a matter of trying to close information or knowledge gaps (Lidskog et al. 2009 :
131–2). Refl exive governance entails an awareness that current modes of risk governance potentially could produce new side effects, new risks. Institutional and
technological structures need to be forward-looking and adaptive, allow for trialand- error learning and experiment with new innovations (Grin 2006 ; Kemp and
Loorbach 2006 ).
While interviewees in the fi ve case studies in general acknowledged the complexities and uncertainties surrounding environmental risks (regarding causes and
effects), they seldom used tools to systematically take into account uncertainties
and ambiguity ; particularly those that stem from combined risks (e.g. cocktail
effects regarding chemical risks). Our analysis showed that environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea, in general, does not yet acknowledge these combined
risks adequately. Risk assessment tends to go on as usual in the various sectors
(Hassler et al. 2011 , 2013 ). In none of the cases did we fi nd any specifi c mechanisms, strategies or guidelines for systematically dealing with uncertainty and
ambivalence. While the precautionary principle is increasingly invoked as a means
to cope with uncertainty, actors rarely refl ect upon how this principle should be
implemented in practice. Having said that, what the case studies also show is that
there is at least a growing recognition among scientists and other stakeholders that
science alone cannot provide answers to all questions (see also Linke et al. 2016 ).
7.5.2 Holistic Approach in Terms of Scales, Sectors and Actors
A holistic approach entails preparedness for (1) multi-scale, (2) multi-sector and (3)
multi-actor approaches to problem handling.
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…