222
9.4 Conclusions and Ways Forward
That (risk) communication to the general public should be seen as an inherent element of environmental and sustainability governance forms part of the standard
rhetoric of transnational and intergovernmental organisations as well as authorities
at different political levels. The need for general public support for environmental
information as part of environmental governance in the Baltic Sea region can therefore not be underestimated. Environmental information is seen as especially relevant when drastic measures of risk management (such as closing commercially
important areas for fi shing or imposing nutrient reductions to combat eutrophication) have to be implemented. Such measures normally result in protests and confl icts as well as public debate in and through the media. Wide public acceptance of
overall risk policy and its underlying principles – such as those at the core of EAM –
is a necessary condition to successfully implement such measures (cf. Dreyer et al.
2011 ).
We have identifi ed some examples of relatively well-working risk communication with parts of the organised public in BSR, such as in fi sheries or eutrophication,
but also a number of different barriers and obstacles. Our analysis of fi ve cases
shows a far from ideal situation from the perspective of refl exive or good governance with regard to how risk communication is conducted. Risk communication
activities are often not fi rmly anchored in the organisational structure of the institutions responsible for risk assessment and management and are not understood as
integral components of the entire risk regulation /governance process. It is also clear
that there is no real refl ection on communication activities and whether the precise
forms of communication and use of mediums for communication refl ect the transnational nature of risks under consideration, their context and whether they arouse,
or could arouse, societal concern. Our key result from this study is that BSR consists of many national institutions for risk communication, but that there are hardly
any centralised institutions for risk communication activities relating to environmental governance in the region.
Another key conclusion is that public risk communication in this array of crossnational environmental risks is restricted mainly to (one-way) information . More
dialogical approaches, for example, aimed at the particular needs of citizens and
consumers do not play a signifi cant role. The particular nature of the fi ve risk issues
is one reason for this lack of dialogue since they appear to provide only few opportunities for the public to contribute to risk management. We have, however, seen
that in the cases of overfi shing and eutrophication, the average citizen is more or
less directly addressed in his/her role as consumer and encouraged to move towards
sustainable consumption. These cases are, however, mainly initiatives of environmental NGOs and businesses (cf. Dreyer et al. 2011 ).
Against this backdrop and from our empirical and theoretical knowledge of risk
communication and the role of the public, we suggest ways forward. We see several
aspects that could be improved in risk communication with regard to the involvement of the general public in BSR:
A.M. Jönsson et al.
9.4 Conclusions and Ways Forward
That (risk) communication to the general public should be seen as an inherent element of environmental and sustainability governance forms part of the standard
rhetoric of transnational and intergovernmental organisations as well as authorities
at different political levels. The need for general public support for environmental
information as part of environmental governance in the Baltic Sea region can therefore not be underestimated. Environmental information is seen as especially relevant when drastic measures of risk management (such as closing commercially
important areas for fi shing or imposing nutrient reductions to combat eutrophication) have to be implemented. Such measures normally result in protests and confl icts as well as public debate in and through the media. Wide public acceptance of
overall risk policy and its underlying principles – such as those at the core of EAM –
is a necessary condition to successfully implement such measures (cf. Dreyer et al.
2011 ).
We have identifi ed some examples of relatively well-working risk communication with parts of the organised public in BSR, such as in fi sheries or eutrophication,
but also a number of different barriers and obstacles. Our analysis of fi ve cases
shows a far from ideal situation from the perspective of refl exive or good governance with regard to how risk communication is conducted. Risk communication
activities are often not fi rmly anchored in the organisational structure of the institutions responsible for risk assessment and management and are not understood as
integral components of the entire risk regulation /governance process. It is also clear
that there is no real refl ection on communication activities and whether the precise
forms of communication and use of mediums for communication refl ect the transnational nature of risks under consideration, their context and whether they arouse,
or could arouse, societal concern. Our key result from this study is that BSR consists of many national institutions for risk communication, but that there are hardly
any centralised institutions for risk communication activities relating to environmental governance in the region.
Another key conclusion is that public risk communication in this array of crossnational environmental risks is restricted mainly to (one-way) information . More
dialogical approaches, for example, aimed at the particular needs of citizens and
consumers do not play a signifi cant role. The particular nature of the fi ve risk issues
is one reason for this lack of dialogue since they appear to provide only few opportunities for the public to contribute to risk management. We have, however, seen
that in the cases of overfi shing and eutrophication, the average citizen is more or
less directly addressed in his/her role as consumer and encouraged to move towards
sustainable consumption. These cases are, however, mainly initiatives of environmental NGOs and businesses (cf. Dreyer et al. 2011 ).
Against this backdrop and from our empirical and theoretical knowledge of risk
communication and the role of the public, we suggest ways forward. We see several
aspects that could be improved in risk communication with regard to the involvement of the general public in BSR:
A.M. Jönsson et al.