55
more disadvantageous than advantageous. The need for an overarching structure for
a region that is by nature multinational and comprises an open resource was
acknowledged by all actors.
The following fi ve subsections describe the process and challenges of generating
the necessary knowledge to be used for decision-making processes. Challenges
arise at each step, beginning with data collection through analysis and management
of uncertainty.
3.3.1.1 Data Collection: The Analysis and Advice Process
The starting point of giving good scientifi c advice to the policy sector is the data
collection process. Good data collection depends on the robustness of data collection procedures. National Fisheries Institutes (NFIs) collect data through survey
vessels with high costs attached to the process (Wilson 2009 : 96). Besides fi sheriesindependent data, fi sheries-dependent data are also gathered, mainly through sampling of landings.
Inconsistencies between data collection across countries result in controversies
about data gathered. This has been especially true with regard to discards of fi sh in
relation to stocks. The heterogeneity of national authorities responsible for enforcement and inspection, as well as different scientifi c methodologies in relation to calculating the length or ageing of landings, also complicates comparisons. As Wilson
( 2009 ) describes, data from fi sheries is often not regarded as reliable and confl icts
around data sources seen to be politically laden. An example of the problems with
unreliability highlights this. In 2004 it was estimated that landings of cod were
under-reported by 35 % (Wilson 2009 : 99). However, scientists were heavily dependent on this data. Consequently, unreliable data have negative effects on ICES’
analyses later on in the process which could result in unreliable assessments of fi sh
stocks and then possibly poorly formulated recommendations.
The system of data gathering for fi sheries has improved through means like
video surveillance on trawlers and sophisticated enforcement procedures that help
especially with discard data. This applies particularly in relation to the discard ban,
which was fi rst implemented in January 2015 in the Baltic Sea.
The advice process has a very formalised procedure. First, the client asks for
advice. Then expert groups (coordinated by ICES ) have to collect data which is
used to draft a technical scientifi c report. The draft report is then peer-reviewed by
independent experts,
9 and the review as well as the draft report is used by the advice
drafting group to give advice. This fi nal ‘ICES advice’ is then agreed upon in the
Advisory Committee (ACOM).
9 This offi cial external peer-review process was changed to an internal review in 2014.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
more disadvantageous than advantageous. The need for an overarching structure for
a region that is by nature multinational and comprises an open resource was
acknowledged by all actors.
The following fi ve subsections describe the process and challenges of generating
the necessary knowledge to be used for decision-making processes. Challenges
arise at each step, beginning with data collection through analysis and management
of uncertainty.
3.3.1.1 Data Collection: The Analysis and Advice Process
The starting point of giving good scientifi c advice to the policy sector is the data
collection process. Good data collection depends on the robustness of data collection procedures. National Fisheries Institutes (NFIs) collect data through survey
vessels with high costs attached to the process (Wilson 2009 : 96). Besides fi sheriesindependent data, fi sheries-dependent data are also gathered, mainly through sampling of landings.
Inconsistencies between data collection across countries result in controversies
about data gathered. This has been especially true with regard to discards of fi sh in
relation to stocks. The heterogeneity of national authorities responsible for enforcement and inspection, as well as different scientifi c methodologies in relation to calculating the length or ageing of landings, also complicates comparisons. As Wilson
( 2009 ) describes, data from fi sheries is often not regarded as reliable and confl icts
around data sources seen to be politically laden. An example of the problems with
unreliability highlights this. In 2004 it was estimated that landings of cod were
under-reported by 35 % (Wilson 2009 : 99). However, scientists were heavily dependent on this data. Consequently, unreliable data have negative effects on ICES’
analyses later on in the process which could result in unreliable assessments of fi sh
stocks and then possibly poorly formulated recommendations.
The system of data gathering for fi sheries has improved through means like
video surveillance on trawlers and sophisticated enforcement procedures that help
especially with discard data. This applies particularly in relation to the discard ban,
which was fi rst implemented in January 2015 in the Baltic Sea.
The advice process has a very formalised procedure. First, the client asks for
advice. Then expert groups (coordinated by ICES ) have to collect data which is
used to draft a technical scientifi c report. The draft report is then peer-reviewed by
independent experts,
9 and the review as well as the draft report is used by the advice
drafting group to give advice. This fi nal ‘ICES advice’ is then agreed upon in the
Advisory Committee (ACOM).
9 This offi cial external peer-review process was changed to an internal review in 2014.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance