61
excluded or poor framing of issues can lead to the rejection of assessment results,
advice, recommendations and/or management decisions. It is therefore important to
consider both formal communication channels and informal ones. The former add
legitimacy to governance processes, whilst the latter have the potential to build trust
and cross-sector coalitions for collaboration in management (cf. Linke and Jentoft
2013 ).
Even before communication on a specifi c issue begins, the framing of the issue
is critically important. Whether something is seen as an opportunity or a risk or a
threat or a challenge or should be looked at in terms of its economic, ecological or
social effects or at all of them simultaneously determines subsequent communication processes.
3.3.2.1 Framing: The Issue of ‘Overfi shing’
Results from the interviews carried out suggest that there are highly divergent
meanings attached to the term ‘overfi shing’ by the main actors involved in European
fi sheries governance which consequently result in confl ict amongst the actors.
Today the EU Commission uses the term ‘overfi shed’ whilst addressing concept of
maximum sustainable yield ( MSY ). The 2009 Green Paper says:
While a few EU fl eets are profi table with no public support, most of Europe’s fi shing fl eets
are either running losses or returning low profi ts. Overall poor performance is due to
chronic overcapacity of which overfi shing is both a cause and a consequence: fl eets have
the power to fi sh much more than can safely be removed without jeopardising the future
productivity of stocks. (CEC 2009a : 7)
The Fisheries Secretariat
13 states hereupon:
In 2009 the Eastern cod stock was described as being overfi shed with respect to the potential long term yield for the fi shery, meaning that the stock could be much larger and more
fi sh could be caught in the future if fi shing mortality was reduced.
The Green Paper’s statement ‘88 % of Community stocks are being fi shed
beyond MSY’ therefore does not mean that these stocks are near to collapse but
‘that these fi sh populations could increase and generate more economic output if
they were left for only a few years under less fi shing pressure’ (CEC 2009a : 7). The
concept ‘outside safe biological limits’ on the other hand refers to the more serious
situation of overfi shing, implying that these stocks ‘may not be able to replenish’
(ibid.).
Some interviewees said that conservation and environmental groups collapse the
distinction between ‘overfi shed stocks’ and stocks near to collapse something that
the media also does. According to many industry representatives and even other
stakeholders, treating everything as overfi shed stocks is overdramatic and a case of
13 Information from the website of The Fisheries Secretariat, which describes itself as ‘a non-profi t
organisation dedicated to work towards more sustainable fi sheries at an international level, with a
focus on the European Union’, http://www.fi shsec.org/article.asp?CategoryID=1&ContextID=194
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
excluded or poor framing of issues can lead to the rejection of assessment results,
advice, recommendations and/or management decisions. It is therefore important to
consider both formal communication channels and informal ones. The former add
legitimacy to governance processes, whilst the latter have the potential to build trust
and cross-sector coalitions for collaboration in management (cf. Linke and Jentoft
2013 ).
Even before communication on a specifi c issue begins, the framing of the issue
is critically important. Whether something is seen as an opportunity or a risk or a
threat or a challenge or should be looked at in terms of its economic, ecological or
social effects or at all of them simultaneously determines subsequent communication processes.
3.3.2.1 Framing: The Issue of ‘Overfi shing’
Results from the interviews carried out suggest that there are highly divergent
meanings attached to the term ‘overfi shing’ by the main actors involved in European
fi sheries governance which consequently result in confl ict amongst the actors.
Today the EU Commission uses the term ‘overfi shed’ whilst addressing concept of
maximum sustainable yield ( MSY ). The 2009 Green Paper says:
While a few EU fl eets are profi table with no public support, most of Europe’s fi shing fl eets
are either running losses or returning low profi ts. Overall poor performance is due to
chronic overcapacity of which overfi shing is both a cause and a consequence: fl eets have
the power to fi sh much more than can safely be removed without jeopardising the future
productivity of stocks. (CEC 2009a : 7)
The Fisheries Secretariat
13 states hereupon:
In 2009 the Eastern cod stock was described as being overfi shed with respect to the potential long term yield for the fi shery, meaning that the stock could be much larger and more
fi sh could be caught in the future if fi shing mortality was reduced.
The Green Paper’s statement ‘88 % of Community stocks are being fi shed
beyond MSY’ therefore does not mean that these stocks are near to collapse but
‘that these fi sh populations could increase and generate more economic output if
they were left for only a few years under less fi shing pressure’ (CEC 2009a : 7). The
concept ‘outside safe biological limits’ on the other hand refers to the more serious
situation of overfi shing, implying that these stocks ‘may not be able to replenish’
(ibid.).
Some interviewees said that conservation and environmental groups collapse the
distinction between ‘overfi shed stocks’ and stocks near to collapse something that
the media also does. According to many industry representatives and even other
stakeholders, treating everything as overfi shed stocks is overdramatic and a case of
13 Information from the website of The Fisheries Secretariat, which describes itself as ‘a non-profi t
organisation dedicated to work towards more sustainable fi sheries at an international level, with a
focus on the European Union’, http://www.fi shsec.org/article.asp?CategoryID=1&ContextID=194
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance