214
platforms of communication for politicians and authorities, but not for independent
single scientists or laboratories (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). The European Environmental
Agency (EEA), the European Green Spider Network (consisting of communication
offi cers from national environmental ministries and agencies in Europe and supported by the DG Environment of the European Commission ) and IMPEL are other
organisations or networks that aim to distribute and communicate information
regarding environmental risks in, for example, the BSR.
There is of course also communication within and among the different organs of
the EU. However, the complexity of the EU creates diffi culties for communication
inside the organisation. This is, for example, noted in the eutrophication case study
where communication between authorities at the national level is less about institutionalised formal communication, but instead about informal communication and
personal contacts and networks, created through a tight interplay between science
and policy (Haahti et al. 2010 ; Linke et al. 2014 ). This reliance on informal communication and personal contacts is also noted in the case of hazardous chemicals ,
as illustrated in the following quote from an offi cial from a Swedish state authority:
‘It is important to know the right people and have a network of contacts. If you send
a letter to the agency, you will never know where it will end up’ (Udovyk et al.
2010 : 48). These personal contacts are not often easily applied across the entire
BSR (Udovyk et al. 2010 ).
The lack of communication and tools and platforms for successful communication is often identifi ed as a barrier to risk management and implementation. An
example of this is that of IAS. According to the case study report on IAS, cooperation and communication between the key stakeholders was highly unsatisfactory.
The weak communication between the main players, together with the lack of public debate, was identifi ed as the main reason for low public awareness on the IAS
issue (Lemke et al. 2010 ).
Overfi shing is the risk area with the most established forms of regional risk communication. The communication takes place through Regional Advisory Councils
(RACs) , like the one established for the Baltic Sea in 2006 (cf. Linke et al. 2011 ).
RACs are advisory institutions set up by the EU Commission with representatives
from the fi shing industry and different environmental groups (NGOs) and are often
put forward as an innovative example of regional stakeholder participation (Linke
and Jentoft 2013 ; Sellke et al. 2010 ). If broad inclusion is the ideal for risk governance, it is necessary to not have a static idea of who stakeholders are. A static view
of stakeholders presupposes what issues are at stake and who is to be seen as holding a stake in that issue. In fact, the very defi nition of who the legitimate stakeholders are is part of the framing process. Governance structures, including organisations
and institutions, shape these framing processes.
Offi cials of the German Fisheries Association stressed during an interview that
the BS RAC is a forum for ‘entering into real dialogue with other stakeholders,
scientists and Commission offi cials’ (Sellke et al. 2010 : 29). We found that the most
advanced form of regionalisation among our fi ve case studies was in the area of
fi shing with RACs as the main example of multi-stakeholder regionalised advice
A.M. Jönsson et al.
platforms of communication for politicians and authorities, but not for independent
single scientists or laboratories (Udovyk et al. 2010 ). The European Environmental
Agency (EEA), the European Green Spider Network (consisting of communication
offi cers from national environmental ministries and agencies in Europe and supported by the DG Environment of the European Commission ) and IMPEL are other
organisations or networks that aim to distribute and communicate information
regarding environmental risks in, for example, the BSR.
There is of course also communication within and among the different organs of
the EU. However, the complexity of the EU creates diffi culties for communication
inside the organisation. This is, for example, noted in the eutrophication case study
where communication between authorities at the national level is less about institutionalised formal communication, but instead about informal communication and
personal contacts and networks, created through a tight interplay between science
and policy (Haahti et al. 2010 ; Linke et al. 2014 ). This reliance on informal communication and personal contacts is also noted in the case of hazardous chemicals ,
as illustrated in the following quote from an offi cial from a Swedish state authority:
‘It is important to know the right people and have a network of contacts. If you send
a letter to the agency, you will never know where it will end up’ (Udovyk et al.
2010 : 48). These personal contacts are not often easily applied across the entire
BSR (Udovyk et al. 2010 ).
The lack of communication and tools and platforms for successful communication is often identifi ed as a barrier to risk management and implementation. An
example of this is that of IAS. According to the case study report on IAS, cooperation and communication between the key stakeholders was highly unsatisfactory.
The weak communication between the main players, together with the lack of public debate, was identifi ed as the main reason for low public awareness on the IAS
issue (Lemke et al. 2010 ).
Overfi shing is the risk area with the most established forms of regional risk communication. The communication takes place through Regional Advisory Councils
(RACs) , like the one established for the Baltic Sea in 2006 (cf. Linke et al. 2011 ).
RACs are advisory institutions set up by the EU Commission with representatives
from the fi shing industry and different environmental groups (NGOs) and are often
put forward as an innovative example of regional stakeholder participation (Linke
and Jentoft 2013 ; Sellke et al. 2010 ). If broad inclusion is the ideal for risk governance, it is necessary to not have a static idea of who stakeholders are. A static view
of stakeholders presupposes what issues are at stake and who is to be seen as holding a stake in that issue. In fact, the very defi nition of who the legitimate stakeholders are is part of the framing process. Governance structures, including organisations
and institutions, shape these framing processes.
Offi cials of the German Fisheries Association stressed during an interview that
the BS RAC is a forum for ‘entering into real dialogue with other stakeholders,
scientists and Commission offi cials’ (Sellke et al. 2010 : 29). We found that the most
advanced form of regionalisation among our fi ve case studies was in the area of
fi shing with RACs as the main example of multi-stakeholder regionalised advice
A.M. Jönsson et al.