63
need for ICES to adapt to new societal circumstances. In recent years ICES has
therefore undertaken substantial efforts to make its scientifi c advisory processes
more transparent, reliable and digestible for non-scientists. For example, since 2013
ICES produces an ‘up-to-date and easy-to-read digest of the offi cial ICES advice’,
which is a popularised version of offi cial communications that are more understandable to a wider audience. Distributed as an online paper (see, http://www.ices.dk/
publications/our-publications/Pages/Popular-advice.aspx ) through, for example,
social media, this popular advice presents ICES’ new orientation towards nonscientifi c audiences. Whilst such initiatives are generally lauded amongst stakeholders and the general public, managers, for example, from DG MARE, feel that
there is a need to discuss how to combine highly technical communications of scientifi c procedures ‘at the bench’ with more understandable communiqués for
outreach.
3.3.2.3 Risk Communication to the Public
Industry and management representatives as well as scientists from ICES confi rmed
to us that ‘ overfi shing’ is a hot topic for the media. That fi sh stocks will be extinct
e.g. by 2048 (cf. Stokstad 2009 ) is a good headline, but for industry representatives
and managers, such headlines strain the governance process because it potentially
exaggerates things. Hence, communication to the public should be through a shared
framing process in terms of how the issue is framed.
Overall our interviewees did not see a need for more specifi c public participation
within the governance process. Communication with the public was regarded as
important in terms of sharing information . Although all interviewees agreed that it
is always good to have the public involved (because of the complexity of the governance process), they did not feel that the public should make recommendations
about future policies. Some of the interviewees, especially from DG MARE, saw
the European Parliament as well as national parliaments as being the democratically
elected representatives of the public.
3.4 Discussion
Our case study about Baltic Sea fi sheries points out several problematic issues pertaining to a good governance process for fi sheries management. Some of those
issues are generic to the fi eld of fi sheries management itself, whilst others relate to
organisational shortcomings which can be improved upon. Before making recommendations for such improvements, two basic issues need to be emphasised to point
out key problematic areas:
1. Dealing with uncertainty in assessment –management interactions
2. Communication and stakeholder participation
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
need for ICES to adapt to new societal circumstances. In recent years ICES has
therefore undertaken substantial efforts to make its scientifi c advisory processes
more transparent, reliable and digestible for non-scientists. For example, since 2013
ICES produces an ‘up-to-date and easy-to-read digest of the offi cial ICES advice’,
which is a popularised version of offi cial communications that are more understandable to a wider audience. Distributed as an online paper (see, http://www.ices.dk/
publications/our-publications/Pages/Popular-advice.aspx ) through, for example,
social media, this popular advice presents ICES’ new orientation towards nonscientifi c audiences. Whilst such initiatives are generally lauded amongst stakeholders and the general public, managers, for example, from DG MARE, feel that
there is a need to discuss how to combine highly technical communications of scientifi c procedures ‘at the bench’ with more understandable communiqués for
outreach.
3.3.2.3 Risk Communication to the Public
Industry and management representatives as well as scientists from ICES confi rmed
to us that ‘ overfi shing’ is a hot topic for the media. That fi sh stocks will be extinct
e.g. by 2048 (cf. Stokstad 2009 ) is a good headline, but for industry representatives
and managers, such headlines strain the governance process because it potentially
exaggerates things. Hence, communication to the public should be through a shared
framing process in terms of how the issue is framed.
Overall our interviewees did not see a need for more specifi c public participation
within the governance process. Communication with the public was regarded as
important in terms of sharing information . Although all interviewees agreed that it
is always good to have the public involved (because of the complexity of the governance process), they did not feel that the public should make recommendations
about future policies. Some of the interviewees, especially from DG MARE, saw
the European Parliament as well as national parliaments as being the democratically
elected representatives of the public.
3.4 Discussion
Our case study about Baltic Sea fi sheries points out several problematic issues pertaining to a good governance process for fi sheries management. Some of those
issues are generic to the fi eld of fi sheries management itself, whilst others relate to
organisational shortcomings which can be improved upon. Before making recommendations for such improvements, two basic issues need to be emphasised to point
out key problematic areas:
1. Dealing with uncertainty in assessment –management interactions
2. Communication and stakeholder participation
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance