207
2008 ). Environmental governance of the Baltic Sea is not only a case of regional
governance but also linked to the area of marine governance (see, e.g. van Leeuwen
and Kern 2013 ). Even if BSR is a particular case, the RISKGOV project (cf.
Introduction in this book) has contributed knowledge relevant for the wider fi elds of
regional, marine and environmental governance. We argue, accordingly, that results
presented in this chapter are relevant for the understanding of (public) risk communication, within a cross-country governance context, in general.
Various actors (e.g. policy-makers, social scientists, etc.) agree that for societies
to be able to manage and govern global risks, there is a need for improved transnational communication, more harmonised decision-making and multi-stakeholder
participation as well as for the increased involvement of citizens through information and dialogue . In the policy-making context, this is described as ‘good governance’ (cf. Whiteside 2006 ). For example, the Aarhus Convention ( 1998 ) emphasises
the role of public deliberation in environmental decision-making. So too do the EU
directive on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the EU Sixth Environmental
Action Programme (European Commission 2001a )
1 and the European Commission’s
White Paper on European Governance (European Commission 2001b ). From a
theoretical perspective, ‘good governance’ can also be defi ned as ‘refl exive governance’ and includes aspects like transparency, broad participation and self-scrutiny
(see, e.g. Boström et al. 2016 ; Hassler et al. 2013 ; Voss and Kemp 2006 ).
2 According
to Oran Young, ‘governance’ is a wider term than government, as it is ‘a social
function centred on efforts to steer or guide societies toward collectively benefi cial
outcomes and away from outcomes that are collectively harmful’ ( 2009 : 12). This
function often includes governments playing a role but is much wider comprising
other actors from other social spheres as well. Governance is, accordingly, not
restricted to hierarchical and top-down relations but also involves citizens and
stakeholders in network-like constellations. The communication model underpinning this mode of governance is ‘ dialogue’ (e.g. Felt and Fochler 2010 ; Jentoft et al.
2007 ; Pierre and Peters 2000 ).
In a previous article about stakeholder participation and communication in relation to environmental issues in BSR, Dreyer and colleagues ( 2014 ) concluded that
it is crucial to acknowledge the role of the public, enhance efforts to communicate
EAM and raise public awareness of and interest in EAM, for a successful governance process and implementation of EAM. Increased public debate would also
help to prepare the ground for ‘refl exive governance’ based on a deliberative ideal.
At an aggregated level, the public and citizens are important counterparts to policymakers as ‘ public opinion’ , voters and grassroots movements.
1 There is now also a seventh action programme that however does not mention public deliberation
among the main priorities, only ‘better information’ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/
index.htm
2 See Boström et al. ( 2016 ) for an analysis of BSR environmental governance using the theory of
refl exive governance.
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…
2008 ). Environmental governance of the Baltic Sea is not only a case of regional
governance but also linked to the area of marine governance (see, e.g. van Leeuwen
and Kern 2013 ). Even if BSR is a particular case, the RISKGOV project (cf.
Introduction in this book) has contributed knowledge relevant for the wider fi elds of
regional, marine and environmental governance. We argue, accordingly, that results
presented in this chapter are relevant for the understanding of (public) risk communication, within a cross-country governance context, in general.
Various actors (e.g. policy-makers, social scientists, etc.) agree that for societies
to be able to manage and govern global risks, there is a need for improved transnational communication, more harmonised decision-making and multi-stakeholder
participation as well as for the increased involvement of citizens through information and dialogue . In the policy-making context, this is described as ‘good governance’ (cf. Whiteside 2006 ). For example, the Aarhus Convention ( 1998 ) emphasises
the role of public deliberation in environmental decision-making. So too do the EU
directive on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the EU Sixth Environmental
Action Programme (European Commission 2001a )
1 and the European Commission’s
White Paper on European Governance (European Commission 2001b ). From a
theoretical perspective, ‘good governance’ can also be defi ned as ‘refl exive governance’ and includes aspects like transparency, broad participation and self-scrutiny
(see, e.g. Boström et al. 2016 ; Hassler et al. 2013 ; Voss and Kemp 2006 ).
2 According
to Oran Young, ‘governance’ is a wider term than government, as it is ‘a social
function centred on efforts to steer or guide societies toward collectively benefi cial
outcomes and away from outcomes that are collectively harmful’ ( 2009 : 12). This
function often includes governments playing a role but is much wider comprising
other actors from other social spheres as well. Governance is, accordingly, not
restricted to hierarchical and top-down relations but also involves citizens and
stakeholders in network-like constellations. The communication model underpinning this mode of governance is ‘ dialogue’ (e.g. Felt and Fochler 2010 ; Jentoft et al.
2007 ; Pierre and Peters 2000 ).
In a previous article about stakeholder participation and communication in relation to environmental issues in BSR, Dreyer and colleagues ( 2014 ) concluded that
it is crucial to acknowledge the role of the public, enhance efforts to communicate
EAM and raise public awareness of and interest in EAM, for a successful governance process and implementation of EAM. Increased public debate would also
help to prepare the ground for ‘refl exive governance’ based on a deliberative ideal.
At an aggregated level, the public and citizens are important counterparts to policymakers as ‘ public opinion’ , voters and grassroots movements.
1 There is now also a seventh action programme that however does not mention public deliberation
among the main priorities, only ‘better information’ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/newprg/
index.htm
2 See Boström et al. ( 2016 ) for an analysis of BSR environmental governance using the theory of
refl exive governance.
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…