60
current system. Any scientifi c analysis is only as good as the data used, and data on
fi sh stocks gathered by survey vessels and partially validated by fi sheries’ data is
often unreliable and always incomplete. Further, ecosystems such as maritime environments are a dynamic entity with stochastic effects and uncertain dynamics.
There are increasing calls for improved concepts of uncertainty treatment and
improved methodology in the characterisation, consideration, communication and
management of uncertainty for scientifi c assessment and advice. It has been argued,
for example, by Dankel et al. ( 2012 ), that a better understanding of how to characterise scientifi c uncertainty and its implications are needed. However, according to
our interviewees, the underlying problem has still not been resolved, namely, that
DG MARE wants numbers, whilst ICES’s scientists prefer to give more qualitative
and nuanced information .
This poses a fundamental problem for the whole management process: ICES is
expected to deliver recommendations as sound and clear as possible in order for DG
MARE to draft proposals for action. ICES’ advice, on the other hand, has to be
legitimate and defi nitive, i.e. it cannot be open to different interpretations by different stakeholders (Wilson 2009 : 124). That there is uncertainty, however, has to be
somehow communicated for the advice to become credible, but how exactly uncertainty should and can be communicated to DG MARE is an ongoing discussion, not
least because of different understandings of uncertainty between ICES and DG
MARE. This is referred to as ‘institutional uncertainty’ (Linke et al. 2014 ).
Industry representatives in all countries generally felt more comfortable with
management decisions made by the Council of Ministers, partly because the latter
did not fully follow the advice of ICES . Industrialists felt that NGOs read ICES’
advice all too literally. They on the other hand understood the uncertainties involved
and thus expected decision makers to set different TACs than those of
ICES. Unsurprisingly, NGO representatives were very much in favour of the precautionary approach to scientifi c uncertainties. They felt that given the lack of or the
unreliability of data, the precautionary approach would better address concerns of
sustainable management of resources. Representatives from ICES on the other hand
were less perturbed. They saw themselves as delivering a service to DG MARE
based on the available resources and knowledge. In their view, their assessment was
mainly a biological–economic one. They did not see a threat of species extinction.
Rather, they were concerned that if TACs were set too high, economic problems
might arise. DG MARE representatives saw the problem similarly and referred
mainly to the challenges of data reliability and communication of uncertainty.
Further, they felt that local and anecdotal knowledge about fi sh stocks should be
taken seriously.
3.3.2 Stakeholder Communication Processes
Communication amongst stakeholders, but also between stakeholders and institutions managing maritime affairs in the Baltic Sea, is a crucial element of the whole
governance process. Failed communication as a result of certain stakeholders being
P. Sellke et al.
current system. Any scientifi c analysis is only as good as the data used, and data on
fi sh stocks gathered by survey vessels and partially validated by fi sheries’ data is
often unreliable and always incomplete. Further, ecosystems such as maritime environments are a dynamic entity with stochastic effects and uncertain dynamics.
There are increasing calls for improved concepts of uncertainty treatment and
improved methodology in the characterisation, consideration, communication and
management of uncertainty for scientifi c assessment and advice. It has been argued,
for example, by Dankel et al. ( 2012 ), that a better understanding of how to characterise scientifi c uncertainty and its implications are needed. However, according to
our interviewees, the underlying problem has still not been resolved, namely, that
DG MARE wants numbers, whilst ICES’s scientists prefer to give more qualitative
and nuanced information .
This poses a fundamental problem for the whole management process: ICES is
expected to deliver recommendations as sound and clear as possible in order for DG
MARE to draft proposals for action. ICES’ advice, on the other hand, has to be
legitimate and defi nitive, i.e. it cannot be open to different interpretations by different stakeholders (Wilson 2009 : 124). That there is uncertainty, however, has to be
somehow communicated for the advice to become credible, but how exactly uncertainty should and can be communicated to DG MARE is an ongoing discussion, not
least because of different understandings of uncertainty between ICES and DG
MARE. This is referred to as ‘institutional uncertainty’ (Linke et al. 2014 ).
Industry representatives in all countries generally felt more comfortable with
management decisions made by the Council of Ministers, partly because the latter
did not fully follow the advice of ICES . Industrialists felt that NGOs read ICES’
advice all too literally. They on the other hand understood the uncertainties involved
and thus expected decision makers to set different TACs than those of
ICES. Unsurprisingly, NGO representatives were very much in favour of the precautionary approach to scientifi c uncertainties. They felt that given the lack of or the
unreliability of data, the precautionary approach would better address concerns of
sustainable management of resources. Representatives from ICES on the other hand
were less perturbed. They saw themselves as delivering a service to DG MARE
based on the available resources and knowledge. In their view, their assessment was
mainly a biological–economic one. They did not see a threat of species extinction.
Rather, they were concerned that if TACs were set too high, economic problems
might arise. DG MARE representatives saw the problem similarly and referred
mainly to the challenges of data reliability and communication of uncertainty.
Further, they felt that local and anecdotal knowledge about fi sh stocks should be
taken seriously.
3.3.2 Stakeholder Communication Processes
Communication amongst stakeholders, but also between stakeholders and institutions managing maritime affairs in the Baltic Sea, is a crucial element of the whole
governance process. Failed communication as a result of certain stakeholders being
P. Sellke et al.