57
3.3.1.3 New Challenges to Scientifi c Advice with an EAFM
Long-term management approaches and EAFM in particular present huge, new
challenges for scientifi c advice. Moving to these new forms of more holistic,
ecosystem- based management will require substantial changes to processes within
the scientifi c advisory system. This is currently high on the agenda in ICES and
addressed, for example, through various new ecosystem working groups (e.g.
WGIAB 2014 ; WKRISCO 2014 ). However, from the point of view of the managers
in the European Commission , a historic gap has emerged that impedes management
today, namely, between the form of advice that the scientifi c system is geared to
provide and the form of advice that is progressively required under the revised CFP
and EAFM context (Wilson 2009 : 120). The shift towards long-term management
is accompanied by a move towards management based on fl eets and fi sheries rather
than single fi sh stocks. The move towards an EAFM is accompanied by a shift
towards management of multispecies rather than single species.
10 Notwithstanding
these shifts, there are still many different views about what an EAFM approach
should be about. EAFM is often referred to as a fi sheries management policy, which
addresses issues such as by-catch of marine mammals and birds and the impact of
fi shing on the sea bottom. However, fi sheries scientists fi nd it challenging to provide advice because they are primarily trained to deal with fi sh stock units and
examine single species one by one. In other words, they are used to deliver advice
on TAC and its imperative of setting and distributing fi shing quotas (Wilson and
Delaney 2005 ).
An EAFM, on the other hand, is meant to capture stakeholders’ perspectives, as
it is broad and all encompassing. Within the governance literature, EAMF-type processes are often called ‘paralysis by analysis’ (Renn 2008 ) because its overly inclusive nature may lead to inertia. Although the governance side of EAFM deals only
with outcomes of the risk assessment, there are still doubts about the feasibility of
EAFM. Scientifi c models used by ICES currently involve only a minor number of
variables, partially because of a lack of data and also because a large number of
intervening variables with stochastic relationships, natural variations and changed
human behaviour become impossible at some point to calculate. Furthermore, fundamental problems arise with the framing of objectives aimed at protecting the
ecosystem. Should the sea be treated like a farm that aims to address long-term food
production or should it rather be protected for its own sake (cf. Wilson 2009 : 170)?
As Wilson points out, based on attitude surveys amongst scientists working for
ICES, divergent world views have severe effects on specifi c management measures
like the precautionary approach. He also noted that there was a signifi cant difference between agency and non-agency scientists (Wilson 2009 : 171).
NGO representatives that we interviewed favoured EAFM as an approach
because it is a holistic perspective and basically deals with all variables that are
important for integrated maritime management. They see it as an approach that
10 In 2015, a new multispecies management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea is to be
adopted by the EU Parliament as has already been done by the Council of Ministers.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
3.3.1.3 New Challenges to Scientifi c Advice with an EAFM
Long-term management approaches and EAFM in particular present huge, new
challenges for scientifi c advice. Moving to these new forms of more holistic,
ecosystem- based management will require substantial changes to processes within
the scientifi c advisory system. This is currently high on the agenda in ICES and
addressed, for example, through various new ecosystem working groups (e.g.
WGIAB 2014 ; WKRISCO 2014 ). However, from the point of view of the managers
in the European Commission , a historic gap has emerged that impedes management
today, namely, between the form of advice that the scientifi c system is geared to
provide and the form of advice that is progressively required under the revised CFP
and EAFM context (Wilson 2009 : 120). The shift towards long-term management
is accompanied by a move towards management based on fl eets and fi sheries rather
than single fi sh stocks. The move towards an EAFM is accompanied by a shift
towards management of multispecies rather than single species.
10 Notwithstanding
these shifts, there are still many different views about what an EAFM approach
should be about. EAFM is often referred to as a fi sheries management policy, which
addresses issues such as by-catch of marine mammals and birds and the impact of
fi shing on the sea bottom. However, fi sheries scientists fi nd it challenging to provide advice because they are primarily trained to deal with fi sh stock units and
examine single species one by one. In other words, they are used to deliver advice
on TAC and its imperative of setting and distributing fi shing quotas (Wilson and
Delaney 2005 ).
An EAFM, on the other hand, is meant to capture stakeholders’ perspectives, as
it is broad and all encompassing. Within the governance literature, EAMF-type processes are often called ‘paralysis by analysis’ (Renn 2008 ) because its overly inclusive nature may lead to inertia. Although the governance side of EAFM deals only
with outcomes of the risk assessment, there are still doubts about the feasibility of
EAFM. Scientifi c models used by ICES currently involve only a minor number of
variables, partially because of a lack of data and also because a large number of
intervening variables with stochastic relationships, natural variations and changed
human behaviour become impossible at some point to calculate. Furthermore, fundamental problems arise with the framing of objectives aimed at protecting the
ecosystem. Should the sea be treated like a farm that aims to address long-term food
production or should it rather be protected for its own sake (cf. Wilson 2009 : 170)?
As Wilson points out, based on attitude surveys amongst scientists working for
ICES, divergent world views have severe effects on specifi c management measures
like the precautionary approach. He also noted that there was a signifi cant difference between agency and non-agency scientists (Wilson 2009 : 171).
NGO representatives that we interviewed favoured EAFM as an approach
because it is a holistic perspective and basically deals with all variables that are
important for integrated maritime management. They see it as an approach that
10 In 2015, a new multispecies management plan for cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea is to be
adopted by the EU Parliament as has already been done by the Council of Ministers.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance