58
overcomes the missing links between different biological, social and economic
aspects concerning the Baltic Sea and that it improves communication. At the same
time, they feel that more inclusive stakeholder processes should be launched and
that regionalisation plays a crucial role in implementing EAFM. EAFM, however,
also warrants the introduction of decision-making processes at the regional level.
Some NGOs would like to see the inclusion of national decision makers into the
current RAC structure.
Industry representatives interviewed in our study widely criticised EAFM, and if
they did not, they saw it as a multispecies approach. Their criticism was based on the
fact that EAFM was a tool by which different interest groups were able to get a voice
on particular issues such as climate change or bird protection within the management system. Second, they said that the EAFM rather than being a tool for sectoral
protection became a way to protect individual interests. Furthermore, even if EAFM
was to be taken seriously, it would be impossible to implement because there were
simply too many variables to include, many of which scientist have no knowledge
about. In other words, EAFM is more of a utopian vision fi lled with fl aws.
How the implementation of EAFM in EU fi sheries and particularly in the Baltic
Sea will develop is an issue left to further investigation. Recent scientifi c developments in ICES have been aimed at establishing so-called integrated ecosystem
assessments (IEAs) as ‘a formal synthesis tool to quantitatively analyse information
on relevant natural and socio-economic factors, in relation to specifi ed management
objectives’ (Möllmann et al. 2014 ). What remains to be seen is whether IEA development will succeed in becoming ‘scientifi cally credible and socially legitimate’ by
integrating ecological, economic and social knowledge for marine governance in
particular ecoregions (WKRISCO 2014 ).
Leading scientists from ICES that we interviewed have suggested that EAFM
would be a signifi cant challenge. In their view, it is next to impossible to connect
multiple variables from different scientifi c disciplines and with different data methodologies into one model. The most that is possible in their view is a multispecies
approach. However, regardless of their scepticism, ICES is preparing for EAFM
through a working group.
Risk managers we interviewed had different views regarding EAFM. Some of
them felt that EAFM will be the future of maritime management, whilst others
shared the views of scientists. The differences in opinion largely stem from a different understanding of ecosystem-based management, i.e. whether it is aimed at the
whole ecosystem or whether it targeted at a multispecies approach.
3.3.1.4 Uncertainty as a Key Challenge
Risk is a potential consequence (negative or positive) of human endeavour to obtain
something they value (cf. Renn 2008 ). Risk assessment is the array of methods to
assess hazards and vulnerability to these hazards. National experts working for
ICES are in charge of assessing the vulnerability of the Baltic Sea and its fi sh stocks
as well as the potential hazardous consequences of fi shing in terms of discards. Risk
P. Sellke et al.
overcomes the missing links between different biological, social and economic
aspects concerning the Baltic Sea and that it improves communication. At the same
time, they feel that more inclusive stakeholder processes should be launched and
that regionalisation plays a crucial role in implementing EAFM. EAFM, however,
also warrants the introduction of decision-making processes at the regional level.
Some NGOs would like to see the inclusion of national decision makers into the
current RAC structure.
Industry representatives interviewed in our study widely criticised EAFM, and if
they did not, they saw it as a multispecies approach. Their criticism was based on the
fact that EAFM was a tool by which different interest groups were able to get a voice
on particular issues such as climate change or bird protection within the management system. Second, they said that the EAFM rather than being a tool for sectoral
protection became a way to protect individual interests. Furthermore, even if EAFM
was to be taken seriously, it would be impossible to implement because there were
simply too many variables to include, many of which scientist have no knowledge
about. In other words, EAFM is more of a utopian vision fi lled with fl aws.
How the implementation of EAFM in EU fi sheries and particularly in the Baltic
Sea will develop is an issue left to further investigation. Recent scientifi c developments in ICES have been aimed at establishing so-called integrated ecosystem
assessments (IEAs) as ‘a formal synthesis tool to quantitatively analyse information
on relevant natural and socio-economic factors, in relation to specifi ed management
objectives’ (Möllmann et al. 2014 ). What remains to be seen is whether IEA development will succeed in becoming ‘scientifi cally credible and socially legitimate’ by
integrating ecological, economic and social knowledge for marine governance in
particular ecoregions (WKRISCO 2014 ).
Leading scientists from ICES that we interviewed have suggested that EAFM
would be a signifi cant challenge. In their view, it is next to impossible to connect
multiple variables from different scientifi c disciplines and with different data methodologies into one model. The most that is possible in their view is a multispecies
approach. However, regardless of their scepticism, ICES is preparing for EAFM
through a working group.
Risk managers we interviewed had different views regarding EAFM. Some of
them felt that EAFM will be the future of maritime management, whilst others
shared the views of scientists. The differences in opinion largely stem from a different understanding of ecosystem-based management, i.e. whether it is aimed at the
whole ecosystem or whether it targeted at a multispecies approach.
3.3.1.4 Uncertainty as a Key Challenge
Risk is a potential consequence (negative or positive) of human endeavour to obtain
something they value (cf. Renn 2008 ). Risk assessment is the array of methods to
assess hazards and vulnerability to these hazards. National experts working for
ICES are in charge of assessing the vulnerability of the Baltic Sea and its fi sh stocks
as well as the potential hazardous consequences of fi shing in terms of discards. Risk
P. Sellke et al.