62
false information being fed to consumers and the wider public. If the resulting misconceptions were to infl uence consumer behaviour, this could have negative effects
for the fi shing and processing industries.
Offi cial statements by the EU, of the type given above, can be used by different
stakeholders to make different points. Whilst industry representatives we spoke to
felt that the EU was not saying anything about biological extinction of species,
NGO representatives felt that the EU was stressing that overfi shing was taking
place although they did not clearly defi ne overfi shing. A fundamental problem with
regard to the framing of the issue of ‘overfi shing’ is that it can be defi ned economically, socially or environmentally. Actors largely choose perspectives that best fi t
their own agendas. Our interviews revealed that differences in the framing of the
issue of overfi shing were not so much about whether species are close to extinction
but rather about whether a long-term or short-term perspective with regard to overfi shing should and could be addressed by EAFM.
As this analysis illustrates, framing does not only relate to what is understood by
different actors about the issues at stake but also to what rules, procedures and conventions specifi cally mean in dealing with risk. EAFM is a remarkable example of
this phenomenon since different actors point out different aspects of EAFM. It is
understood by some actors as merely a multispecies approach, whereas others
employ a more holistic view of the whole environmental system. These differences
in the framing of the concept of EAFM need to be communicated within the governance process. If communication is poor, actors might not be talking about the same
issue when they refer to EAFM. Further, if the framing differs, the interpretation of
rules, procedures and conventions will differ as well.
3.3.2.2 Enhancing Transparency in the Scientifi c Advisory System
In the context of recent restructuring of ICES , participation has been extended by
opening up meetings to ‘observers’ much more than in the past (cf. Stange et al.
2012 ). Since 2004, ICES has been inviting representatives from industry and environmental NGOs to attend meetings of the Advisory Committee on Fishery
Management (ACOM) (Wilson 2009 : 122), which has representatives from each of
the 20 ICES member countries and meets every year in the spring and autumn. This
‘transparency through observers’ (ibid., p. 274) was a response to demands from
both DG MARE and stakeholder groups.
In 2013, the Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) put forward
their suggestions on how to shape a more transparent process that also integrates
stakeholders in the scientifi c advice process. Specifi cally, the report emphasised the
need to encompass stakeholders’ research needs over the medium and long term,
evaluate and propose best practices in stakeholder engagement in EU-funded projects and defi ne terms of reference for an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders and
scientists (ICES WGMARS Report 2013 ).
Generally, most of our interviewees valued increased transparency about procedures pertaining to generating scientifi c knowledge and advice and stressed the
P. Sellke et al.
false information being fed to consumers and the wider public. If the resulting misconceptions were to infl uence consumer behaviour, this could have negative effects
for the fi shing and processing industries.
Offi cial statements by the EU, of the type given above, can be used by different
stakeholders to make different points. Whilst industry representatives we spoke to
felt that the EU was not saying anything about biological extinction of species,
NGO representatives felt that the EU was stressing that overfi shing was taking
place although they did not clearly defi ne overfi shing. A fundamental problem with
regard to the framing of the issue of ‘overfi shing’ is that it can be defi ned economically, socially or environmentally. Actors largely choose perspectives that best fi t
their own agendas. Our interviews revealed that differences in the framing of the
issue of overfi shing were not so much about whether species are close to extinction
but rather about whether a long-term or short-term perspective with regard to overfi shing should and could be addressed by EAFM.
As this analysis illustrates, framing does not only relate to what is understood by
different actors about the issues at stake but also to what rules, procedures and conventions specifi cally mean in dealing with risk. EAFM is a remarkable example of
this phenomenon since different actors point out different aspects of EAFM. It is
understood by some actors as merely a multispecies approach, whereas others
employ a more holistic view of the whole environmental system. These differences
in the framing of the concept of EAFM need to be communicated within the governance process. If communication is poor, actors might not be talking about the same
issue when they refer to EAFM. Further, if the framing differs, the interpretation of
rules, procedures and conventions will differ as well.
3.3.2.2 Enhancing Transparency in the Scientifi c Advisory System
In the context of recent restructuring of ICES , participation has been extended by
opening up meetings to ‘observers’ much more than in the past (cf. Stange et al.
2012 ). Since 2004, ICES has been inviting representatives from industry and environmental NGOs to attend meetings of the Advisory Committee on Fishery
Management (ACOM) (Wilson 2009 : 122), which has representatives from each of
the 20 ICES member countries and meets every year in the spring and autumn. This
‘transparency through observers’ (ibid., p. 274) was a response to demands from
both DG MARE and stakeholder groups.
In 2013, the Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) put forward
their suggestions on how to shape a more transparent process that also integrates
stakeholders in the scientifi c advice process. Specifi cally, the report emphasised the
need to encompass stakeholders’ research needs over the medium and long term,
evaluate and propose best practices in stakeholder engagement in EU-funded projects and defi ne terms of reference for an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders and
scientists (ICES WGMARS Report 2013 ).
Generally, most of our interviewees valued increased transparency about procedures pertaining to generating scientifi c knowledge and advice and stressed the
P. Sellke et al.