59
assessment is always dependent on what we know about risk; in other words the
task of risk assessment is to generate more knowledge about risk.
According to European Community legislation, CFP shall be guided by ‘a
decision- making process based on sound scientifi c advice which delivers timely
results’ (Council Regulation 2002 , (Art. 2(2)b)). However, managers need to base
their decisions on information which is associated with considerable scientifi c
uncertainty
11 : There is uncertainty about how fi sh stocks will react to pressures,
both human and environmental, and there is uncertainty involved in measuring
existing fi sh stocks (due to sampling problems and misreporting of landings and
discards) (Cochrane 2000 ; Finlayson 1994 ; Hawkins 2007 ). This type of uncertainty about size and age composition of fi sh stocks can result in incomplete knowledge that leads to ICES having diffi culty making assessments. Consequently, giving
advice to the Commission is also problematic. An example of this was the case of
the Eastern Baltic cod stock in 2014 when an ICES assessment failed to provide
adequate feedback on the present stock of cod (cf. Eero et al. 2015 ). The uncertainty
challenge has therefore been and is still high on the agenda of both scientists and
politicians, particularly because the TAC system in general has not been able to
resolve the problems of overfi shing and resource depletion (Lassen et al. 2014 ;
Villasante et al. 2011).
CFP aims at responding to these perennial problems and growing insights vis-àvis ecological issues and recognises the need to adopt a precautionary approach
and, progressively, to move from a single-species-based fi sheries management
towards EAFM (EC 2002 ; Howarth 2008 ). As the interconnectedness between fi sheries and the environment is still imperfectly understood, assessors and managers
are faced with an even greater uncertainty challenge when ecosystem considerations are taken seriously: ‘We have to accept that uncertainty in the science inputs
to management will be larger (and more realistic) in an EAF…’
12 (Rice 2005 : 269).
In summary, our case study interviews highlight that there is agreement amongst
scientists and managers that EAFM requires an ‘adaptive management’ approach to
deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and the lack of full knowledge or understanding of how ecosystems function (cf. Linke and Bruckmeier
2015 ). The term ‘adaptive management’ is used to refer to a management approach
that contains elements of learning -by-doing or research feedback, which make it
possible to respond to such uncertainties (CEC 2008 : 7f.).
3.3.1.5 Disagreement About Uncertainty Characterisation
ICES is in charge of generating knowledge about fi sh stocks for risk assessment.
The process of how the necessary knowledge is created to assess further measures
regarding fi sh stocks has been described above. Whilst ICES tries to gather the best
available knowledge, issues of complexity cannot be addressed well within the
11 Additionally, there is considerable complexity in defi ning cause–effect relationships.
12 EAF means ecosystem-based approach to fi sheries.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
assessment is always dependent on what we know about risk; in other words the
task of risk assessment is to generate more knowledge about risk.
According to European Community legislation, CFP shall be guided by ‘a
decision- making process based on sound scientifi c advice which delivers timely
results’ (Council Regulation 2002 , (Art. 2(2)b)). However, managers need to base
their decisions on information which is associated with considerable scientifi c
uncertainty
11 : There is uncertainty about how fi sh stocks will react to pressures,
both human and environmental, and there is uncertainty involved in measuring
existing fi sh stocks (due to sampling problems and misreporting of landings and
discards) (Cochrane 2000 ; Finlayson 1994 ; Hawkins 2007 ). This type of uncertainty about size and age composition of fi sh stocks can result in incomplete knowledge that leads to ICES having diffi culty making assessments. Consequently, giving
advice to the Commission is also problematic. An example of this was the case of
the Eastern Baltic cod stock in 2014 when an ICES assessment failed to provide
adequate feedback on the present stock of cod (cf. Eero et al. 2015 ). The uncertainty
challenge has therefore been and is still high on the agenda of both scientists and
politicians, particularly because the TAC system in general has not been able to
resolve the problems of overfi shing and resource depletion (Lassen et al. 2014 ;
Villasante et al. 2011).
CFP aims at responding to these perennial problems and growing insights vis-àvis ecological issues and recognises the need to adopt a precautionary approach
and, progressively, to move from a single-species-based fi sheries management
towards EAFM (EC 2002 ; Howarth 2008 ). As the interconnectedness between fi sheries and the environment is still imperfectly understood, assessors and managers
are faced with an even greater uncertainty challenge when ecosystem considerations are taken seriously: ‘We have to accept that uncertainty in the science inputs
to management will be larger (and more realistic) in an EAF…’
12 (Rice 2005 : 269).
In summary, our case study interviews highlight that there is agreement amongst
scientists and managers that EAFM requires an ‘adaptive management’ approach to
deal with the complex and dynamic nature of ecosystems and the lack of full knowledge or understanding of how ecosystems function (cf. Linke and Bruckmeier
2015 ). The term ‘adaptive management’ is used to refer to a management approach
that contains elements of learning -by-doing or research feedback, which make it
possible to respond to such uncertainties (CEC 2008 : 7f.).
3.3.1.5 Disagreement About Uncertainty Characterisation
ICES is in charge of generating knowledge about fi sh stocks for risk assessment.
The process of how the necessary knowledge is created to assess further measures
regarding fi sh stocks has been described above. Whilst ICES tries to gather the best
available knowledge, issues of complexity cannot be addressed well within the
11 Additionally, there is considerable complexity in defi ning cause–effect relationships.
12 EAF means ecosystem-based approach to fi sheries.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance