9
strong tradition of scientifi c exploration of the Baltic Sea, still unclear if and how
these changes will affect environmental governance issues in the Baltic Sea. Key
questions in this context are with regard to if and how strategies for coping with the
fundamental problems of different kinds of uncertainty have evolved for particular
issues and sectors. This book will investigate these questions in-depth.
1.2.3 Stakeholder Participation and Communication
Various actors (e.g. policy-makers, social scientists, civil society organisations,
etc.) generally agree that for societies to be able to manage and govern large-scale
environmental risks, there is a need for transnational communication and multistakeholder participation, as well as for increased involvement of citizens through
various processes of deliberation . For example, several scholars have argued for the
need to facilitate stakeholder inclusion and deliberation in the governance of the
marine environment and natural resources such as fi sh (cf. Jentoft and Chuenpagdee
2015 ; Mackinson et al. 2011 ). To facilitate stakeholder inclusion and participation,
several new institutional arrangements have also been discussed, such as ‘joint
environmental policy-making’ (Mol et al. 2000 ), ‘multi-stakeholder dialogue’
(Bendell 2000 ) and ‘partnership’ (Glasbergen et al. 2007 ). In the governance of
regional seas such as the Baltic Sea, collaboration fostering initiatives by nongovernmental and subnational organisations (Kern and Löffelsend 2004 ), as well as
transnational stakeholder networks, have also been found to be infl uential in many
environmental governance contexts (Kern and Bulkeley 2009 ). Adding to this complexity , the institutions for Baltic Sea environmental governance have developed
rather rapidly over the last few years in the form of venues for stakeholder participation such as the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) in EU fi sheries management
(e.g. Linke et al. 2011 ) and stakeholder forums organised by HELCOM (e.g. Hassler
et al. 2013 ). A core question is, however, to what extent these complex stakeholder
arrangements open up collaboration and learning as opposed to impede possibilities
to, for example, bridge sectoral interests.
Previous research on environmental governance has revealed several benefi ts of
inclusive, communicative and participatory approaches (e.g. Lafferty and
Meadowcroft 1996 ; Lovan et al. 2004 ), but also situations when participation may
not be successful (e.g. Boström 2006 ). The advantages of more inclusive governance approaches relate to normative and instrumental reasons. Broad inclusion can
be seen as normatively (intrinsically) ‘good’ because the idea of inclusiveness
responds to democratic ideals around socially just representation. Citizens that are
potentially affected by, for example, environmental pollution should be given
access to data and processes and provided with opportunities to voice their concerns
in communicative and even judicial forums, a principle established, for example, by
the Aarhus convention (UN ECE 1998 ). The academic literature also discusses
instrumental reasons for inclusiveness (e.g. Boström 2006 ; Jönsson et al. 2016 ). For
example, it has been argued that inclusiveness generates new and more socially
1 Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea: Identifying Key Challenges,…
strong tradition of scientifi c exploration of the Baltic Sea, still unclear if and how
these changes will affect environmental governance issues in the Baltic Sea. Key
questions in this context are with regard to if and how strategies for coping with the
fundamental problems of different kinds of uncertainty have evolved for particular
issues and sectors. This book will investigate these questions in-depth.
1.2.3 Stakeholder Participation and Communication
Various actors (e.g. policy-makers, social scientists, civil society organisations,
etc.) generally agree that for societies to be able to manage and govern large-scale
environmental risks, there is a need for transnational communication and multistakeholder participation, as well as for increased involvement of citizens through
various processes of deliberation . For example, several scholars have argued for the
need to facilitate stakeholder inclusion and deliberation in the governance of the
marine environment and natural resources such as fi sh (cf. Jentoft and Chuenpagdee
2015 ; Mackinson et al. 2011 ). To facilitate stakeholder inclusion and participation,
several new institutional arrangements have also been discussed, such as ‘joint
environmental policy-making’ (Mol et al. 2000 ), ‘multi-stakeholder dialogue’
(Bendell 2000 ) and ‘partnership’ (Glasbergen et al. 2007 ). In the governance of
regional seas such as the Baltic Sea, collaboration fostering initiatives by nongovernmental and subnational organisations (Kern and Löffelsend 2004 ), as well as
transnational stakeholder networks, have also been found to be infl uential in many
environmental governance contexts (Kern and Bulkeley 2009 ). Adding to this complexity , the institutions for Baltic Sea environmental governance have developed
rather rapidly over the last few years in the form of venues for stakeholder participation such as the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) in EU fi sheries management
(e.g. Linke et al. 2011 ) and stakeholder forums organised by HELCOM (e.g. Hassler
et al. 2013 ). A core question is, however, to what extent these complex stakeholder
arrangements open up collaboration and learning as opposed to impede possibilities
to, for example, bridge sectoral interests.
Previous research on environmental governance has revealed several benefi ts of
inclusive, communicative and participatory approaches (e.g. Lafferty and
Meadowcroft 1996 ; Lovan et al. 2004 ), but also situations when participation may
not be successful (e.g. Boström 2006 ). The advantages of more inclusive governance approaches relate to normative and instrumental reasons. Broad inclusion can
be seen as normatively (intrinsically) ‘good’ because the idea of inclusiveness
responds to democratic ideals around socially just representation. Citizens that are
potentially affected by, for example, environmental pollution should be given
access to data and processes and provided with opportunities to voice their concerns
in communicative and even judicial forums, a principle established, for example, by
the Aarhus convention (UN ECE 1998 ). The academic literature also discusses
instrumental reasons for inclusiveness (e.g. Boström 2006 ; Jönsson et al. 2016 ). For
example, it has been argued that inclusiveness generates new and more socially
1 Environmental Governance of the Baltic Sea: Identifying Key Challenges,…