187
8.3.2 Managing Uncertainties and Stakeholder Disagreements
8.3.2.1 Fisheries
In EU fi sheries governance, disputes and confl icts exist between major stakeholder
groups such as fi shermen, NGOs, scientists and policymakers about how to manage
and/or preserve fi sh stocks adequately in the Baltic Sea. These confl icts revolve
around basic issues such as ‘whose knowledge counts’ in the debate between
conservationists and those who represent fi sheries’ interests. Stakeholders are often
dissatisfi ed for different reasons with the management process and consider separate
aspects of the CFP as the cause for the failure to attain more sustainable fi sheries
practices in the Baltic Sea. The disagreements can be categorised under two major
issues: the accuracy, objectivity and reliability of different types of knowledge about
fi sh stocks (i.e. data uncertainties), and therefore their applicability to decisionmaking, and secondly, how social issues, i.e. the different value perspectives and
worldviews of stakeholders and socio-economic and cultural dimensions, shall be
addressed in policy and management under the CFP, which has traditionally been
exclusively natural science based (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ).
Uncertainties in fi sh stock assessments , and associated stakeholder disagreements about how these uncertainties should be treated in management, have been
categorised into three main sources (Linke et al. 2014 ). The fi rst is the classic notion
of scientifi c uncertainty relating to lack of data, natural variability and ecosystem
complexity that is creating tensions in the scientifi c community (e.g. within ICES )
about adequacy of data sources and how to present uncertainty while giving advice
to management bodies like the EU Commission (Wilson 2009 , 123ff). A second site
of uncertainty exists at the centre of science-policy interactions: whereas managers
and decision-makers usually want clear, quantifi ed advice, for example, in the form
of a fi shing quota, scientists often like to give more nuanced qualitative assessments, referring, for example, to ‘poorly understood stock dynamics’, ‘problems
with estimating discards’ or ‘changing fi shing patterns’ (Sellke et al. 2016 ; Wilson
2009 : 125). This issue relates to the basic conceptual problem of how to defi ne the
roles of science and policy in practical interactions (see theoretical Sect. 8.2 above)
and leads to constant negotiations about how and where to draw the science-policy
boundary – both within science (i.e. in ICES) and management, as well as in the
wider stakeholder arena. The third aspect of uncertainty relates to problems that
emerge when stakeholders interpret scientifi c assessments differently according to
their own interests and blame opposing actors of misunderstanding or misinterpreting science. Such varying interpretations of scientifi c uncertainty are obvious in
negotiations, e.g., within the RACs, where fi sheries and NGO representatives often
strongly disagree with each other about whether and how the lack of data and
insuffi cient knowledge shall be used to restrict fi shing activity according to the
precautionary approach of the CFP, to which conservation groups usually adhere
(Linke and Jentoft 2013 , 2014 ).
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…
8.3.2 Managing Uncertainties and Stakeholder Disagreements
8.3.2.1 Fisheries
In EU fi sheries governance, disputes and confl icts exist between major stakeholder
groups such as fi shermen, NGOs, scientists and policymakers about how to manage
and/or preserve fi sh stocks adequately in the Baltic Sea. These confl icts revolve
around basic issues such as ‘whose knowledge counts’ in the debate between
conservationists and those who represent fi sheries’ interests. Stakeholders are often
dissatisfi ed for different reasons with the management process and consider separate
aspects of the CFP as the cause for the failure to attain more sustainable fi sheries
practices in the Baltic Sea. The disagreements can be categorised under two major
issues: the accuracy, objectivity and reliability of different types of knowledge about
fi sh stocks (i.e. data uncertainties), and therefore their applicability to decisionmaking, and secondly, how social issues, i.e. the different value perspectives and
worldviews of stakeholders and socio-economic and cultural dimensions, shall be
addressed in policy and management under the CFP, which has traditionally been
exclusively natural science based (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ).
Uncertainties in fi sh stock assessments , and associated stakeholder disagreements about how these uncertainties should be treated in management, have been
categorised into three main sources (Linke et al. 2014 ). The fi rst is the classic notion
of scientifi c uncertainty relating to lack of data, natural variability and ecosystem
complexity that is creating tensions in the scientifi c community (e.g. within ICES )
about adequacy of data sources and how to present uncertainty while giving advice
to management bodies like the EU Commission (Wilson 2009 , 123ff). A second site
of uncertainty exists at the centre of science-policy interactions: whereas managers
and decision-makers usually want clear, quantifi ed advice, for example, in the form
of a fi shing quota, scientists often like to give more nuanced qualitative assessments, referring, for example, to ‘poorly understood stock dynamics’, ‘problems
with estimating discards’ or ‘changing fi shing patterns’ (Sellke et al. 2016 ; Wilson
2009 : 125). This issue relates to the basic conceptual problem of how to defi ne the
roles of science and policy in practical interactions (see theoretical Sect. 8.2 above)
and leads to constant negotiations about how and where to draw the science-policy
boundary – both within science (i.e. in ICES) and management, as well as in the
wider stakeholder arena. The third aspect of uncertainty relates to problems that
emerge when stakeholders interpret scientifi c assessments differently according to
their own interests and blame opposing actors of misunderstanding or misinterpreting science. Such varying interpretations of scientifi c uncertainty are obvious in
negotiations, e.g., within the RACs, where fi sheries and NGO representatives often
strongly disagree with each other about whether and how the lack of data and
insuffi cient knowledge shall be used to restrict fi shing activity according to the
precautionary approach of the CFP, to which conservation groups usually adhere
(Linke and Jentoft 2013 , 2014 ).
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…