48
3.1.1 Research Approach and Analytical Framework
The case study on which this chapter is based was part of the RISKGOV project
carried out from 2009 to 2011. The research team conducted 15 qualitative semistructured interviews between February and October 2010 with stakeholders and
actors involved in EU and Baltic Sea fi sheries management. Six of these actors were
from the policy sector (EU and country specifi c), two from science, three from
industry, three from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and one from a supranational organisation (DG MARE). The research informing the analyses of this
chapter is further complemented by fi ndings from two more recent research projects
undertaken between 2011 and 2015 as well as extensive document analyses and
interviews with other key actors, particularly from the Baltic Sea RAC. Finally, it
also involved participatory observations of meetings connected to the implementation of the 2013 CFP reform and the new regional Baltic Member States forum
BALTFISH. However, the concrete effects of this most recent CFP reform have not
been investigated empirically and are only partially integrated in this study.
Six main aspects have been especially relevant for this case study and serve as
the analytical framework for our analyses:
• Framing : As with many decision-making processes in the area of risks and technology, the starting point of a governance process is making the implicit defi nitions of the current situation and of the current problem transparent. Different
stakeholders often ascribe different meanings to the same term. Making these
meanings explicit is referred to as ‘framing’ in the governance literature (cf.
Renn 2008 ). In the context of this case study, we were interested in whether and
how stakeholders have divergent views about the problem of overfi shing and
whether the term ‘overfi shing’ is based on a shared understanding by different
stakeholders.
• Governance structures : The qualitative analysis and interviews with policy
experts, scientists, industry and non-governmental stakeholders aimed at detecting existing governance structures in the area, both overt and covert ones. This
part of the study dealt explicitly with institutional issues and questions arising
out of the debate on regionalisation as an asset or substitute to current governance structures.
• Interaction of science and management : Fisheries’ and maritime management in
general are dependent on knowledge about fi sh stocks and their interactions.
Assessing fi sh stocks is a complex scientifi c task because cause–effect relationships are infl uenced by many intervening variables. For example, the development of a certain fi sh stock is not only related to fi shing capacities and limits but
also to the specifi c species’ prey or predator (e.g. seals), maritime pollution ,
parasites and many other variables such as salinity, all of which are important in
the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Within the EU fi sheries governance structure, the task
of resolving natural complexity is left to the scientists who give advice to management and decision-making bodies. The interaction of science and management is therefore of fundamental importance. How scientifi c advice is transferred
P. Sellke et al.
3.1.1 Research Approach and Analytical Framework
The case study on which this chapter is based was part of the RISKGOV project
carried out from 2009 to 2011. The research team conducted 15 qualitative semistructured interviews between February and October 2010 with stakeholders and
actors involved in EU and Baltic Sea fi sheries management. Six of these actors were
from the policy sector (EU and country specifi c), two from science, three from
industry, three from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and one from a supranational organisation (DG MARE). The research informing the analyses of this
chapter is further complemented by fi ndings from two more recent research projects
undertaken between 2011 and 2015 as well as extensive document analyses and
interviews with other key actors, particularly from the Baltic Sea RAC. Finally, it
also involved participatory observations of meetings connected to the implementation of the 2013 CFP reform and the new regional Baltic Member States forum
BALTFISH. However, the concrete effects of this most recent CFP reform have not
been investigated empirically and are only partially integrated in this study.
Six main aspects have been especially relevant for this case study and serve as
the analytical framework for our analyses:
• Framing : As with many decision-making processes in the area of risks and technology, the starting point of a governance process is making the implicit defi nitions of the current situation and of the current problem transparent. Different
stakeholders often ascribe different meanings to the same term. Making these
meanings explicit is referred to as ‘framing’ in the governance literature (cf.
Renn 2008 ). In the context of this case study, we were interested in whether and
how stakeholders have divergent views about the problem of overfi shing and
whether the term ‘overfi shing’ is based on a shared understanding by different
stakeholders.
• Governance structures : The qualitative analysis and interviews with policy
experts, scientists, industry and non-governmental stakeholders aimed at detecting existing governance structures in the area, both overt and covert ones. This
part of the study dealt explicitly with institutional issues and questions arising
out of the debate on regionalisation as an asset or substitute to current governance structures.
• Interaction of science and management : Fisheries’ and maritime management in
general are dependent on knowledge about fi sh stocks and their interactions.
Assessing fi sh stocks is a complex scientifi c task because cause–effect relationships are infl uenced by many intervening variables. For example, the development of a certain fi sh stock is not only related to fi shing capacities and limits but
also to the specifi c species’ prey or predator (e.g. seals), maritime pollution ,
parasites and many other variables such as salinity, all of which are important in
the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Within the EU fi sheries governance structure, the task
of resolving natural complexity is left to the scientists who give advice to management and decision-making bodies. The interaction of science and management is therefore of fundamental importance. How scientifi c advice is transferred
P. Sellke et al.