244
substantially improve possibilities for improved stakeholder input and advice in the
governance of the Baltic marine environment.
Second, we see a substantial need for enhanced efforts to communicate environmental issues and governance challenges, as well as environmental values, services,
etc., to the general public in BSR. As an example, Jönsson et al. ( 2016 ) mention that
environmental communication could be prioritised by HELCOM and national
authorities as part of BSAP implementation and that this subsequently could attract
the attention of media and thereby reach out to the general public. This could complement and even enhance communication efforts by other actors such as business
sector organisations and environmental NGOs. All in all, enhanced regional level
environmental communication could turn the Baltic Sea environment into a hopefully somewhat ‘hotter’ topic in regional public debate and ultimately stimulate
wider engagement to participate in proactive discussions on environmental governance (cf. Jönsson et al. 2016 ).
Finally, there is a need to set up regional forums for stakeholder advice, as well
as regional media and communication platforms for generating a stronger Baltic
identity that include Russia and Russian stakeholders. It seems unrealistic today to
develop an ‘all-inclusive’ institution for stakeholder advice that involves all stakeholders from all sectors and that integrates stakeholder opinions and critiques of all
relevant policy areas. However, we believe that a ‘Regional Marine Advisory
Panel’, supporting, for example, BSAP, MSFD and MSP with stakeholder advice,
could be set up by combing sectoral subdivisions with integrating forums (cf. Dreyer
and Sellke 2015 ).
10.4 Concluding Remarks
These identifi ed pathways towards improved environmental governance of the
Baltic Sea are in need of further analysis and consideration, not least when it comes
to how they potentially could interact with each other. Similarly, while a complex
reality might seem to call for complex governance structures and processes, overlaps, gaps and counteracting policies are seldom fruitful, and hence we want to
caution against creating even more of a governance thicket than today. In this
respect, some of our proposals to reform bodies might seem counterproductive.
However, while these bodies could fi t in or replace current institutions, we want to
underline that the seven identifi ed functions – coordination, integration, interdisciplinarity, precaution, deliberation, communication and adaptability – will continue
to be the most important aspects that need to be taken into account. Whichever
governance set-up that is chosen, these aspects cannot be overlooked, as they largely
are today, when striving towards improved governance of the Baltic Sea environment and its natural resources. Undoubtedly, further investigations would be needed
on how to structure these – or similar – coordinating bodies so that they really promote the vital governance functions that are strikingly missing or underdeveloped
today. To further develop these ideas, we suggest that priority is given to setting up
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson
substantially improve possibilities for improved stakeholder input and advice in the
governance of the Baltic marine environment.
Second, we see a substantial need for enhanced efforts to communicate environmental issues and governance challenges, as well as environmental values, services,
etc., to the general public in BSR. As an example, Jönsson et al. ( 2016 ) mention that
environmental communication could be prioritised by HELCOM and national
authorities as part of BSAP implementation and that this subsequently could attract
the attention of media and thereby reach out to the general public. This could complement and even enhance communication efforts by other actors such as business
sector organisations and environmental NGOs. All in all, enhanced regional level
environmental communication could turn the Baltic Sea environment into a hopefully somewhat ‘hotter’ topic in regional public debate and ultimately stimulate
wider engagement to participate in proactive discussions on environmental governance (cf. Jönsson et al. 2016 ).
Finally, there is a need to set up regional forums for stakeholder advice, as well
as regional media and communication platforms for generating a stronger Baltic
identity that include Russia and Russian stakeholders. It seems unrealistic today to
develop an ‘all-inclusive’ institution for stakeholder advice that involves all stakeholders from all sectors and that integrates stakeholder opinions and critiques of all
relevant policy areas. However, we believe that a ‘Regional Marine Advisory
Panel’, supporting, for example, BSAP, MSFD and MSP with stakeholder advice,
could be set up by combing sectoral subdivisions with integrating forums (cf. Dreyer
and Sellke 2015 ).
10.4 Concluding Remarks
These identifi ed pathways towards improved environmental governance of the
Baltic Sea are in need of further analysis and consideration, not least when it comes
to how they potentially could interact with each other. Similarly, while a complex
reality might seem to call for complex governance structures and processes, overlaps, gaps and counteracting policies are seldom fruitful, and hence we want to
caution against creating even more of a governance thicket than today. In this
respect, some of our proposals to reform bodies might seem counterproductive.
However, while these bodies could fi t in or replace current institutions, we want to
underline that the seven identifi ed functions – coordination, integration, interdisciplinarity, precaution, deliberation, communication and adaptability – will continue
to be the most important aspects that need to be taken into account. Whichever
governance set-up that is chosen, these aspects cannot be overlooked, as they largely
are today, when striving towards improved governance of the Baltic Sea environment and its natural resources. Undoubtedly, further investigations would be needed
on how to structure these – or similar – coordinating bodies so that they really promote the vital governance functions that are strikingly missing or underdeveloped
today. To further develop these ideas, we suggest that priority is given to setting up
M. Gilek and M. Karlsson