223
1. First of all we argue that there is a need to more fi rmly anchor risk communication activities into the organisational structure of the institutions responsible for
risk assessment and management. Risk communication should be understood as
an integral component of the entire risk governance process; that is, risk communication needs to be an ongoing activity during all stages of risk assessment
and risk management, from the framing of the issue to the monitoring of risk
management practice, while the target group may vary from stage to stage.
2. There should be enhanced efforts to communicate EAM to the general public by
using a more proactive approach. Currently, EAM is generally perceived of as a
rather abstract and technical concept that is unlikely to become part of the wider
public agenda. In the context of implementing BSAP , HELCOM (and also public authorities at national levels) increased their efforts to communicate the EAM
concept to journalists and other disseminators through different modes of popularisation and use of illustrative examples of ecological risks and appropriate
EAM-based solutions. This could be one way to attract more attention from the
national media and thereby reach out to the general public. It could help make
environmental issues more of a ‘hot topic’. It would also complement initiatives
of environmental NGOs and the business sector that address the average citizen
in his/her role as consumer (only) (through, for instance, organic consumption or
sustainable choice of seafood). To be a responsible consumer is of course one of
the most essential roles citizens can play. But more proactive risk communication should also invite and stimulate citizens to discuss, frame and campaign for
a cleaner, healthier, more attractive, fair and sustainable Baltic Sea (cf. Dreyer
et al. 2011 ).
3. We also would like to point to the fact that social scientists are not used to their
full potential (or hardly used at all; cf. Linke and Jentoft 2014 ) and need to be
part of all stages of risk governance. All environmental problems are fundamentally also social problems, whether we are talking about causes, understandings
or solutions to problems. Involving social scientists in only select stages of the
governance process is likely thus to reproduce a reductionist view and treatment.
Social scientists are needed to broaden the perspective and highlight the social
character of risk issues. Moreover, using social scientists as mediators in different deliberative processes and meetings could, for example, help by bringing in
a common language. NGOs also could take on a greater responsibility for raising
awareness on environmental risks in the Baltic Sea area so as to create a common
agenda.
4. The precise form of communication and use of mediums for communication
needs to refl ect the transnational nature of risks under consideration, their context and whether they arouse, or could arouse, societal concern. It is important to
note that some risks are related to more or less global fl ows (e.g. chemicals) that
even more so accentuate the challenges. Since there is a need to raise the degree
of political and public awareness about the fi ve risks in the Baltic Sea region,
national news media has to highlight cross-country issues. There is a need for
common media and shared platforms for debating issues, including regional
media stations in different regions (e.g. the Baltic Sea or Mediterranean area).
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…
1. First of all we argue that there is a need to more fi rmly anchor risk communication activities into the organisational structure of the institutions responsible for
risk assessment and management. Risk communication should be understood as
an integral component of the entire risk governance process; that is, risk communication needs to be an ongoing activity during all stages of risk assessment
and risk management, from the framing of the issue to the monitoring of risk
management practice, while the target group may vary from stage to stage.
2. There should be enhanced efforts to communicate EAM to the general public by
using a more proactive approach. Currently, EAM is generally perceived of as a
rather abstract and technical concept that is unlikely to become part of the wider
public agenda. In the context of implementing BSAP , HELCOM (and also public authorities at national levels) increased their efforts to communicate the EAM
concept to journalists and other disseminators through different modes of popularisation and use of illustrative examples of ecological risks and appropriate
EAM-based solutions. This could be one way to attract more attention from the
national media and thereby reach out to the general public. It could help make
environmental issues more of a ‘hot topic’. It would also complement initiatives
of environmental NGOs and the business sector that address the average citizen
in his/her role as consumer (only) (through, for instance, organic consumption or
sustainable choice of seafood). To be a responsible consumer is of course one of
the most essential roles citizens can play. But more proactive risk communication should also invite and stimulate citizens to discuss, frame and campaign for
a cleaner, healthier, more attractive, fair and sustainable Baltic Sea (cf. Dreyer
et al. 2011 ).
3. We also would like to point to the fact that social scientists are not used to their
full potential (or hardly used at all; cf. Linke and Jentoft 2014 ) and need to be
part of all stages of risk governance. All environmental problems are fundamentally also social problems, whether we are talking about causes, understandings
or solutions to problems. Involving social scientists in only select stages of the
governance process is likely thus to reproduce a reductionist view and treatment.
Social scientists are needed to broaden the perspective and highlight the social
character of risk issues. Moreover, using social scientists as mediators in different deliberative processes and meetings could, for example, help by bringing in
a common language. NGOs also could take on a greater responsibility for raising
awareness on environmental risks in the Baltic Sea area so as to create a common
agenda.
4. The precise form of communication and use of mediums for communication
needs to refl ect the transnational nature of risks under consideration, their context and whether they arouse, or could arouse, societal concern. It is important to
note that some risks are related to more or less global fl ows (e.g. chemicals) that
even more so accentuate the challenges. Since there is a need to raise the degree
of political and public awareness about the fi ve risks in the Baltic Sea region,
national news media has to highlight cross-country issues. There is a need for
common media and shared platforms for debating issues, including regional
media stations in different regions (e.g. the Baltic Sea or Mediterranean area).
9 Risk Communication and the Role of the Public: Towards Inclusive Environmental…