166
according to the perceived importance of stakeholder participation , utilisation of
different forms of knowledge and decentralisation. Here, the creation of new organisational bodies creates space for new thinking and breaking up of organisational
inertia, while at the same time previously built up experience and knowledge to
some extent may be lost (see also Hassler et al. 2013 about recent and current developments in ICES , in which organisational change opened up possibilities for
increasing refl exivity).
It should be noted that not only organisations can be trapped in various forms of
path dependency , but individual sectors as well, not least so in ways of thinking and
perspectives adopted. It is possible that the fi shery sector in the EU to a considerable
extent suffers from what may be called TAC path dependency (Hassler et al. 2013 ;
Sellke et al. 2010 , 2016 ). Refl ection on how to better manage Baltic Sea fi sh stocks
is still hampered by traditional thinking on maximum sustainable yield ( MSY ) and
TACs that makes elaboration of concrete management plans based on EAM slow to
emerge. Somewhat similarly, eutrophication caused by agriculture seems to be
trapped in a reductionist thinking regarding natural resource management, where
the EU/ CAP system often sets the agenda for discussions and circumscribes what is
brought to the table (Karlsson et al. 2016 ; Haahti et al. 2010 ).
The breaking loose from negative aspects of path dependency is diffi cult.
Established organisations are often inert and slow to change, historic investments
create vested interests, and expert and public deliberation is often dominated by
prior discourses. However, one way to move forward can be to establish new institutions for discussion and refl ection and stimulate new projects or programmes in
established organisations by providing ear-marked funding and support to organisations entering new areas. One example are HELCOM’s forums for cross-sector
discussions between on the one hand the agriculture and environment sectors and
on the other the fi sheries and environment sectors. An argument could be made that
this ‘institutional redundancy’ where several organisations deal with the same risk
sector – but based on different perspectives and approaches – could, in fact, in the
long run be better than too much streamlining and specialisation. Considering the
tremendous diffi culties in reforming CAP and CFP to fall more in line with sustainability ambitions, different ways to fi nd new perspectives and approaches are without question badly needed.
7.6 Towards EAM and Refl exive Governance?
The contemporary system of environmental governance in the Baltic Sea predominately emphasises single species and tightly circumscribed risk assessment procedures that tend to exclude all other expertise and even formal experts from
decision-making and management. The rationale for new forms of governance is
that the traditional governance mode is ill-equipped to deal with the complexity of
environmental governance in a holistic manner, namely, giving systematic attention
to uncertainty, plurality of values, ambiguity and limited knowledge.
M. Boström et al.
according to the perceived importance of stakeholder participation , utilisation of
different forms of knowledge and decentralisation. Here, the creation of new organisational bodies creates space for new thinking and breaking up of organisational
inertia, while at the same time previously built up experience and knowledge to
some extent may be lost (see also Hassler et al. 2013 about recent and current developments in ICES , in which organisational change opened up possibilities for
increasing refl exivity).
It should be noted that not only organisations can be trapped in various forms of
path dependency , but individual sectors as well, not least so in ways of thinking and
perspectives adopted. It is possible that the fi shery sector in the EU to a considerable
extent suffers from what may be called TAC path dependency (Hassler et al. 2013 ;
Sellke et al. 2010 , 2016 ). Refl ection on how to better manage Baltic Sea fi sh stocks
is still hampered by traditional thinking on maximum sustainable yield ( MSY ) and
TACs that makes elaboration of concrete management plans based on EAM slow to
emerge. Somewhat similarly, eutrophication caused by agriculture seems to be
trapped in a reductionist thinking regarding natural resource management, where
the EU/ CAP system often sets the agenda for discussions and circumscribes what is
brought to the table (Karlsson et al. 2016 ; Haahti et al. 2010 ).
The breaking loose from negative aspects of path dependency is diffi cult.
Established organisations are often inert and slow to change, historic investments
create vested interests, and expert and public deliberation is often dominated by
prior discourses. However, one way to move forward can be to establish new institutions for discussion and refl ection and stimulate new projects or programmes in
established organisations by providing ear-marked funding and support to organisations entering new areas. One example are HELCOM’s forums for cross-sector
discussions between on the one hand the agriculture and environment sectors and
on the other the fi sheries and environment sectors. An argument could be made that
this ‘institutional redundancy’ where several organisations deal with the same risk
sector – but based on different perspectives and approaches – could, in fact, in the
long run be better than too much streamlining and specialisation. Considering the
tremendous diffi culties in reforming CAP and CFP to fall more in line with sustainability ambitions, different ways to fi nd new perspectives and approaches are without question badly needed.
7.6 Towards EAM and Refl exive Governance?
The contemporary system of environmental governance in the Baltic Sea predominately emphasises single species and tightly circumscribed risk assessment procedures that tend to exclude all other expertise and even formal experts from
decision-making and management. The rationale for new forms of governance is
that the traditional governance mode is ill-equipped to deal with the complexity of
environmental governance in a holistic manner, namely, giving systematic attention
to uncertainty, plurality of values, ambiguity and limited knowledge.
M. Boström et al.