167
Substantial amounts of uncertainty necessitate risk assessments drastically different than those done in the traditional way. Governance modes need to be developed that focus more on how to handle uncertainties and induce refl exivity on
existing paths and possible futures, rather than on fi nding exact predictions on hazardous effects and outcomes. Moreover, all fi ve risk areas are characterised by signifi cant amounts of ecological and social complexity . These complexities make
governance challenging. Issues such as regulatory overlap and overload, antagonistic institutional interactions, lagging enforceability, unbalanced inclusion of stakeholders, slow regionalisation , poor risk communication and several others are
urgently needed to be addressed in all fi ve areas addressed in this book. A particularly crucial issue discussed in this chapter is the, oftentimes cemented, sectorisation that prevents interaction and learning across sectors. Despite the variation in
solutions that most likely is needed, learning across risk areas can potentially
improve over-all environmental safety levels and benefi t long-term sustainability.
While we found very little of such cross-sector interaction, early attempts in organisations such as HELCOM and ICES do indicate fruitful pathways and signs of
emerging refl exivity (Hassler et al. 2013 ).
Although comprehensive regulatory frameworks for managing the Baltic Sea are
mostly in place, existing institutional structures accordingly lack a holistic approach
to management, as the structures are often sector driven and based on sectoral governance that often excludes cross-sector cooperation and refl ection. In addition, different regulatory frameworks contradict each other and constitute a confusing
totality. The results from the case studies show that the traditional emphasis on
single species and tightly circumscribed risk assessments that rely on narrow
scientifi c- technical framings still dominate, despite a broader and increasing recognition of the problems with these narrow views. There are many stakeholders around
demanding attention. However, the structures that would facilitate fruitful coordination and deliberations among them are few, limiting and vague (see also Jönsson
et al. 2016 ). Existing institutions are thus inclined to exclude co-management while
mechanisms of path dependency are likely to force actors to stick with ‘business as
usual’. Managing the Baltic Sea entails substantial amounts of uncertainty due to
ecological and social complexity , but there is an apparent lack of scientifi c interdisciplinary integration, linking natural and socio-economic science in assessing the
complexity of risk sources, as existing assessment is primarily based on natural
science. The institutional structures also tend to overlook how to deal with scientifi c
uncertainty , although there appears to be growing awareness among scientists and
other stakeholders that science alone cannot provide all the answers.
The ability to address EAM is a matter of dealing with inert organisations, path
dependency and decision-making systems based on a short-term focus. As we have
stressed, the concept of refl exive governance points to the need for strategic thinking on how to build institutions and governance modes that are both forward- and
backward-looking, which entails refl ection – double-loop learning – on the very
governance process itself including its conditions. Such refl exivity cannot be done
and induced from one vantage point, but rather from a plurality of them. Problem
handling requires the possibility to transgress existing discursive and institutional
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…
Substantial amounts of uncertainty necessitate risk assessments drastically different than those done in the traditional way. Governance modes need to be developed that focus more on how to handle uncertainties and induce refl exivity on
existing paths and possible futures, rather than on fi nding exact predictions on hazardous effects and outcomes. Moreover, all fi ve risk areas are characterised by signifi cant amounts of ecological and social complexity . These complexities make
governance challenging. Issues such as regulatory overlap and overload, antagonistic institutional interactions, lagging enforceability, unbalanced inclusion of stakeholders, slow regionalisation , poor risk communication and several others are
urgently needed to be addressed in all fi ve areas addressed in this book. A particularly crucial issue discussed in this chapter is the, oftentimes cemented, sectorisation that prevents interaction and learning across sectors. Despite the variation in
solutions that most likely is needed, learning across risk areas can potentially
improve over-all environmental safety levels and benefi t long-term sustainability.
While we found very little of such cross-sector interaction, early attempts in organisations such as HELCOM and ICES do indicate fruitful pathways and signs of
emerging refl exivity (Hassler et al. 2013 ).
Although comprehensive regulatory frameworks for managing the Baltic Sea are
mostly in place, existing institutional structures accordingly lack a holistic approach
to management, as the structures are often sector driven and based on sectoral governance that often excludes cross-sector cooperation and refl ection. In addition, different regulatory frameworks contradict each other and constitute a confusing
totality. The results from the case studies show that the traditional emphasis on
single species and tightly circumscribed risk assessments that rely on narrow
scientifi c- technical framings still dominate, despite a broader and increasing recognition of the problems with these narrow views. There are many stakeholders around
demanding attention. However, the structures that would facilitate fruitful coordination and deliberations among them are few, limiting and vague (see also Jönsson
et al. 2016 ). Existing institutions are thus inclined to exclude co-management while
mechanisms of path dependency are likely to force actors to stick with ‘business as
usual’. Managing the Baltic Sea entails substantial amounts of uncertainty due to
ecological and social complexity , but there is an apparent lack of scientifi c interdisciplinary integration, linking natural and socio-economic science in assessing the
complexity of risk sources, as existing assessment is primarily based on natural
science. The institutional structures also tend to overlook how to deal with scientifi c
uncertainty , although there appears to be growing awareness among scientists and
other stakeholders that science alone cannot provide all the answers.
The ability to address EAM is a matter of dealing with inert organisations, path
dependency and decision-making systems based on a short-term focus. As we have
stressed, the concept of refl exive governance points to the need for strategic thinking on how to build institutions and governance modes that are both forward- and
backward-looking, which entails refl ection – double-loop learning – on the very
governance process itself including its conditions. Such refl exivity cannot be done
and induced from one vantage point, but rather from a plurality of them. Problem
handling requires the possibility to transgress existing discursive and institutional
7 The Ecosystem Approach to Management in Baltic Sea Governance: Towards…