220
public pressure on, for example, HELCOM contracting parties to speed up the
ratifi cation process or consider more detailed and binding regulations.
9.3.5 The EAM and Public Risk Communication
Another general fi nding is that there is only very limited EAM-related risk communication targeted at the general public and that EAM has not (yet) become part
of public discourse at national and transnational (BSR) levels. Public awareness of
EAM is limited because there is a lack of news coverage at the regional level
(Dreyer et al. 2011 ; Jönsson 2011 ). Also, the mass media seem rather unwilling to
report on EAM. The reason for this is probably its low news value; it is not a thrilling or original story and in fact somewhat old-fashioned. Currently, public debate is
not a likely source of pressure on stakeholders to become more engaged with EAM
and its guiding principles (Dreyer et al. 2014 ). EAM is thus not yet, at least in BSR,
part of either the public debate or agenda or part of public values and imagination.
The ecological challenge is not yet a ‘hot topic’ for BSR as a whole. Having said
that, there are differences between different risks and problem areas in terms of
public attention given to them.
Although the EAM concept can potentially facilitate refl ection and communication among at least some of the key actors in risk governance, it lacks essential characteristics that are necessary for it to become central to a new societal paradigm,
which could push all different actors central to Baltic Sea environmental governance
to jointly deliberate over and act upon it with regard to the fi ve risk issues (Dreyer
et al. 2011 ). Besides from being rather invisible in public discourse, EAM is used
differently and of a different level of importance to the fi ve risk cases. In, for example, the oil spill case, it was reported that some of the key actors interviewed had
never encountered the term before (Hassler et al. 2010 ). While many or even most
interviewees seem to welcome the EAM concept, it is certainly less clear if this
frame helps in the development of mutual understandings of risk. An interesting fi nding was found in the case of overfi shing , where NGO representatives claimed that
communication actually could be improved by EAM since it creates a common
agenda and discourse (Sellke et al. 2010 ). Of course, it is also necessary to defi ne
what EAM really is while framing the problem and whether or not it is a ‘utopian
vision’, as some interviewees claim, or a fruitful way forward that alone can help
achieve the goal of sustainable development, as claimed by some. All in all, the
abstract and complex nature of EAM appears to be a barrier to its adoption and communication across various actor groups. Governance of environmental risks and
implementation of EAM require balancing different and often confl icting interests
and values. Shared frames and agendas would, for example, enhance the possibility
for successful risk governance. Platforms targeted at developing and implementing a
more integrated approach and discursive space to address risks related to EAM are
essential. These platforms and discursive spaces are needed to facilitate communication and understanding between diverse stakeholders in relation to particular risk
A.M. Jönsson et al.
public pressure on, for example, HELCOM contracting parties to speed up the
ratifi cation process or consider more detailed and binding regulations.
9.3.5 The EAM and Public Risk Communication
Another general fi nding is that there is only very limited EAM-related risk communication targeted at the general public and that EAM has not (yet) become part
of public discourse at national and transnational (BSR) levels. Public awareness of
EAM is limited because there is a lack of news coverage at the regional level
(Dreyer et al. 2011 ; Jönsson 2011 ). Also, the mass media seem rather unwilling to
report on EAM. The reason for this is probably its low news value; it is not a thrilling or original story and in fact somewhat old-fashioned. Currently, public debate is
not a likely source of pressure on stakeholders to become more engaged with EAM
and its guiding principles (Dreyer et al. 2014 ). EAM is thus not yet, at least in BSR,
part of either the public debate or agenda or part of public values and imagination.
The ecological challenge is not yet a ‘hot topic’ for BSR as a whole. Having said
that, there are differences between different risks and problem areas in terms of
public attention given to them.
Although the EAM concept can potentially facilitate refl ection and communication among at least some of the key actors in risk governance, it lacks essential characteristics that are necessary for it to become central to a new societal paradigm,
which could push all different actors central to Baltic Sea environmental governance
to jointly deliberate over and act upon it with regard to the fi ve risk issues (Dreyer
et al. 2011 ). Besides from being rather invisible in public discourse, EAM is used
differently and of a different level of importance to the fi ve risk cases. In, for example, the oil spill case, it was reported that some of the key actors interviewed had
never encountered the term before (Hassler et al. 2010 ). While many or even most
interviewees seem to welcome the EAM concept, it is certainly less clear if this
frame helps in the development of mutual understandings of risk. An interesting fi nding was found in the case of overfi shing , where NGO representatives claimed that
communication actually could be improved by EAM since it creates a common
agenda and discourse (Sellke et al. 2010 ). Of course, it is also necessary to defi ne
what EAM really is while framing the problem and whether or not it is a ‘utopian
vision’, as some interviewees claim, or a fruitful way forward that alone can help
achieve the goal of sustainable development, as claimed by some. All in all, the
abstract and complex nature of EAM appears to be a barrier to its adoption and communication across various actor groups. Governance of environmental risks and
implementation of EAM require balancing different and often confl icting interests
and values. Shared frames and agendas would, for example, enhance the possibility
for successful risk governance. Platforms targeted at developing and implementing a
more integrated approach and discursive space to address risks related to EAM are
essential. These platforms and discursive spaces are needed to facilitate communication and understanding between diverse stakeholders in relation to particular risk
A.M. Jönsson et al.