213
Framing denotes processes in which actors deal with social and ecological complexity . Stakeholders develop their arguments through frames, and these frames
also help them fi nd common ground for negotiations and compromises. Policymaking processes may stimulate rich debates and refl ection both within and across
frames, making stakeholders and the general public able to develop arguments,
debate and refl ect critically on policy statements. Used refl ectively, frames such as
the ecosystem approach, biodiversity , overfi shing , precaution , sustainability and
many others are useful for perceiving and understanding sets of problems in novel
ways. The multilayered character of these frames may open up interpretative fl exibility (cf. Klintman and Boström 2008 ). Such fl exibility provides both barriers and
bridges to communication.
Framing as such can also be viewed in light of communication and media texts.
Robert Entman ( 1993 : 52), doing exactly that, defi nes framing in the following
manner: ‘To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them
more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem defi nition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’. In this setting, frames can be said to defi ne the
problem, diagnose the causes, make moral statements and also suggest solutions to
the problem at hand, even though a frame does not necessarily have to include all
elements (Entman 1993 ). Media framing functions as a way to construct a specifi c
environmental issue and elicit a response or conclusion from the media recipients
(Hansen 2010 ).
In the next section, we will present our empirical fi ndings and analyse risk communication in relation to our selected fi ve environmental risk issues relevant to the
Baltic Sea.
9.3 Results: Risk Communication in BSR
9.3.1 Institutionalised Risk Communication
The main fi nding from our cases is that there are few, if any, actual examples of
systematic institutionalised public risk communication in BSR. There are also a
lack of regional and transnational networks and communicative structures for information sharing with and involvement of the public. However, there are some exceptions as discussed below.
In many cases, HELCOM is the main actor in risk communication. Among other
things, this organisation serves as a communicative platform and meeting place for
different actors and interests (Hassler et al. 2013 ; Van Deever 2011 ). In the eutrophication case, HELCOM, with its Baltic Sea Action Plan, is seen as one of the
main players (Haahti et al. 2010 ). The structure within HELCOM makes it possible
for stakeholders such as NGOs to communicate and contribute knowledge.
According to the case study report on chemical pollution , the EU and HELCOM are
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…
Framing denotes processes in which actors deal with social and ecological complexity . Stakeholders develop their arguments through frames, and these frames
also help them fi nd common ground for negotiations and compromises. Policymaking processes may stimulate rich debates and refl ection both within and across
frames, making stakeholders and the general public able to develop arguments,
debate and refl ect critically on policy statements. Used refl ectively, frames such as
the ecosystem approach, biodiversity , overfi shing , precaution , sustainability and
many others are useful for perceiving and understanding sets of problems in novel
ways. The multilayered character of these frames may open up interpretative fl exibility (cf. Klintman and Boström 2008 ). Such fl exibility provides both barriers and
bridges to communication.
Framing as such can also be viewed in light of communication and media texts.
Robert Entman ( 1993 : 52), doing exactly that, defi nes framing in the following
manner: ‘To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them
more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem defi nition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’. In this setting, frames can be said to defi ne the
problem, diagnose the causes, make moral statements and also suggest solutions to
the problem at hand, even though a frame does not necessarily have to include all
elements (Entman 1993 ). Media framing functions as a way to construct a specifi c
environmental issue and elicit a response or conclusion from the media recipients
(Hansen 2010 ).
In the next section, we will present our empirical fi ndings and analyse risk communication in relation to our selected fi ve environmental risk issues relevant to the
Baltic Sea.
9.3 Results: Risk Communication in BSR
9.3.1 Institutionalised Risk Communication
The main fi nding from our cases is that there are few, if any, actual examples of
systematic institutionalised public risk communication in BSR. There are also a
lack of regional and transnational networks and communicative structures for information sharing with and involvement of the public. However, there are some exceptions as discussed below.
In many cases, HELCOM is the main actor in risk communication. Among other
things, this organisation serves as a communicative platform and meeting place for
different actors and interests (Hassler et al. 2013 ; Van Deever 2011 ). In the eutrophication case, HELCOM, with its Baltic Sea Action Plan, is seen as one of the
main players (Haahti et al. 2010 ). The structure within HELCOM makes it possible
for stakeholders such as NGOs to communicate and contribute knowledge.
According to the case study report on chemical pollution , the EU and HELCOM are
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…