162
However, the potential role of HELCOM could be highlighted. It is not only a
body that contributes to the carving out of a regional regulatory and political space.
It is also a multi-issue organisation. According to our informants in HELCOM, different sections and working groups usually work separately. Yet, it is not hard to
imagine that the increasing focus on EAM could pave the way for more systematic
cross-sector collaboration (e.g. committees, working groups) within the organisation. A limit, on the other hand, is that while HELCOM may be able to achieve
integration among environmental issues, it may face diffi culties to reach out to other
sectoral interests ( agriculture , fi shery).
It is likely that day-to-day concrete management of environmental risks in the
Baltic Sea, as in other regions, will continue to be undertaken within sectoral administrations. The need for expertise, experience, hardware and specialised institutional
structures makes this almost unavoidable. However, the initiatives with HELCOM
forums – HELCOM AGRI/ENV Forum and FISH/ENV Forum – where public
administration representatives of environmental and natural resource use sectors
regularly meet to discuss the implementation of BSAP are interesting possibilities
and could prove to be valuable in bridging sectors.
7.5.2.3 Multi-actor
Third, the multi-actor notion stresses the need to integrate the plurality of values
and interests by using democratic procedures. Moreover, the need for transdisciplinary knowledge production, as well as co-production of knowledge among various types of knowledge holders needs to be acknowledged (Kemp and Loorbach
2006 ). Stakeholder inclusion is generally seen as a necessary element in refl exive
governance (see also Jönsson et al. 2016 ). Different actors can shed additional light
on common problems. Various sector organisations, NGOs and citizens can engage
in social critique and environmental monitoring (Mol 2008 ), which potentially provide essential input to refl exive governance. These actors make observations,
undertake collections and compile and interpret data – in parallel to governmental
bodies and scientists doing the same – and then engage in framing and politicising
of issues. It is important that monitoring is diffused among a plurality of actors,
since this widens the way environmental risks are perceived, measured or estimated,
which in turn can increase likelihoods that less appropriate methods and practices
are weeded out. The simple fact that similar risks are approached from somewhat
different angles can stimulate discussions on methods and methodology and contribute to refi nement of environmental risk monitoring.
The case studies defi nitely show there are lots of stakeholders involved in governance and environmental monitoring . The Baltic Sea region scores relatively well as
a marine region in terms of development of transnational networks (Joas et al. 2008 ;
Kern and Löffelsend 2004 ). The interplay between HELCOM and non-state actors
has been expanded (Van Deever 2011 ). HELCOM has undergone an attitude change
and nowadays allow for non-state actors to take part as observers and even organises
stakeholder conferences (Dreyer et al. 2011 ; Linke et al. 2016 ). Recent innovative
M. Boström et al.
However, the potential role of HELCOM could be highlighted. It is not only a
body that contributes to the carving out of a regional regulatory and political space.
It is also a multi-issue organisation. According to our informants in HELCOM, different sections and working groups usually work separately. Yet, it is not hard to
imagine that the increasing focus on EAM could pave the way for more systematic
cross-sector collaboration (e.g. committees, working groups) within the organisation. A limit, on the other hand, is that while HELCOM may be able to achieve
integration among environmental issues, it may face diffi culties to reach out to other
sectoral interests ( agriculture , fi shery).
It is likely that day-to-day concrete management of environmental risks in the
Baltic Sea, as in other regions, will continue to be undertaken within sectoral administrations. The need for expertise, experience, hardware and specialised institutional
structures makes this almost unavoidable. However, the initiatives with HELCOM
forums – HELCOM AGRI/ENV Forum and FISH/ENV Forum – where public
administration representatives of environmental and natural resource use sectors
regularly meet to discuss the implementation of BSAP are interesting possibilities
and could prove to be valuable in bridging sectors.
7.5.2.3 Multi-actor
Third, the multi-actor notion stresses the need to integrate the plurality of values
and interests by using democratic procedures. Moreover, the need for transdisciplinary knowledge production, as well as co-production of knowledge among various types of knowledge holders needs to be acknowledged (Kemp and Loorbach
2006 ). Stakeholder inclusion is generally seen as a necessary element in refl exive
governance (see also Jönsson et al. 2016 ). Different actors can shed additional light
on common problems. Various sector organisations, NGOs and citizens can engage
in social critique and environmental monitoring (Mol 2008 ), which potentially provide essential input to refl exive governance. These actors make observations,
undertake collections and compile and interpret data – in parallel to governmental
bodies and scientists doing the same – and then engage in framing and politicising
of issues. It is important that monitoring is diffused among a plurality of actors,
since this widens the way environmental risks are perceived, measured or estimated,
which in turn can increase likelihoods that less appropriate methods and practices
are weeded out. The simple fact that similar risks are approached from somewhat
different angles can stimulate discussions on methods and methodology and contribute to refi nement of environmental risk monitoring.
The case studies defi nitely show there are lots of stakeholders involved in governance and environmental monitoring . The Baltic Sea region scores relatively well as
a marine region in terms of development of transnational networks (Joas et al. 2008 ;
Kern and Löffelsend 2004 ). The interplay between HELCOM and non-state actors
has been expanded (Van Deever 2011 ). HELCOM has undergone an attitude change
and nowadays allow for non-state actors to take part as observers and even organises
stakeholder conferences (Dreyer et al. 2011 ; Linke et al. 2016 ). Recent innovative
M. Boström et al.