65
Biological assessments of fi sh stocks, particularly when applying EAFM, also
have to deal with epistemic uncertainty . The confl ict around epistemic uncertainty
and how to interpret results cannot only be solved by further scientifi c analysis, as
it is not merely a cognitive but also an evaluative confl ict. At present the situation
in EU fi sheries governance leaves this question somewhat open. It is not clear as to
who will discuss the implications of evaluative judgements that have to be made.
The ways in which social aspects of uncertainty are currently addressed may play a
crucial and yet underrated role in the further framing of EU fi sheries management
discourse, for example, with respect to contributions of BS RAC to the Baltic
salmon management plan (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ). Further, a second fi eld of confl ict exists in terms of the interaction of science and management with the TACbased management system: policy and decision makers require numbers (quota
advice) as input for further decision-making and communication, whereas the system of science or scientists would produce more qualitatively driven information .
Uncertainty can also stem from unreliable and in some cases invalid data. Data
analysis is obviously dependent on sound data gathering procedures. Unfortunately,
data gathering is one of the problematic aspects of the process. This is partly due to
logistical and practical restrictions and partly to differing interests of national NFIs
and fi sheries, who are mainly in charge of data gathering (Wilson 2009 ). The more
unreliable the data gathering process is, the more unreliable data analysis and advice
based on it. NFIs certainly have national interests and are closely connected to the
national management and policy sector with Member States being part of the
European Council. Hence, whilst data gathering methods have improved, they still
account for a degree of uncertainty.
How the role of uncertainty in management and decision-making is conceptualised and dealt with has in turn also impacted the framing of the problem, risk evaluation, risk management and risk communication. Different framing perspectives in
terms of what role uncertainty actually plays in risk management can lead to different interpretations of assessment results, which subsequently has consequences in
terms of different risk evaluations and management strategies (e.g. applying the
precautionary principle or not).
3.4.2 Communication and Stakeholder Participation
Communication amongst actors, and particularly with and amongst stakeholders,
plays a central role in any governance process. Communication processes in EU
fi sheries management have improved signifi cantly over the last two decades, particularly through RACs, increased interaction between scientists and stakeholders
(e.g. in the form of observer status being given to RAC members at ICES meetings
and vice versa), and management bodies improving communication. Further, participation in planning and decision-making processes has increased signifi cantly in
regional decision-making processes as, for example, with the discard ban, to be
implemented in line with Article 15 in the new CFP reform (Council & Parliament
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
Biological assessments of fi sh stocks, particularly when applying EAFM, also
have to deal with epistemic uncertainty . The confl ict around epistemic uncertainty
and how to interpret results cannot only be solved by further scientifi c analysis, as
it is not merely a cognitive but also an evaluative confl ict. At present the situation
in EU fi sheries governance leaves this question somewhat open. It is not clear as to
who will discuss the implications of evaluative judgements that have to be made.
The ways in which social aspects of uncertainty are currently addressed may play a
crucial and yet underrated role in the further framing of EU fi sheries management
discourse, for example, with respect to contributions of BS RAC to the Baltic
salmon management plan (Linke and Jentoft 2014 ). Further, a second fi eld of confl ict exists in terms of the interaction of science and management with the TACbased management system: policy and decision makers require numbers (quota
advice) as input for further decision-making and communication, whereas the system of science or scientists would produce more qualitatively driven information .
Uncertainty can also stem from unreliable and in some cases invalid data. Data
analysis is obviously dependent on sound data gathering procedures. Unfortunately,
data gathering is one of the problematic aspects of the process. This is partly due to
logistical and practical restrictions and partly to differing interests of national NFIs
and fi sheries, who are mainly in charge of data gathering (Wilson 2009 ). The more
unreliable the data gathering process is, the more unreliable data analysis and advice
based on it. NFIs certainly have national interests and are closely connected to the
national management and policy sector with Member States being part of the
European Council. Hence, whilst data gathering methods have improved, they still
account for a degree of uncertainty.
How the role of uncertainty in management and decision-making is conceptualised and dealt with has in turn also impacted the framing of the problem, risk evaluation, risk management and risk communication. Different framing perspectives in
terms of what role uncertainty actually plays in risk management can lead to different interpretations of assessment results, which subsequently has consequences in
terms of different risk evaluations and management strategies (e.g. applying the
precautionary principle or not).
3.4.2 Communication and Stakeholder Participation
Communication amongst actors, and particularly with and amongst stakeholders,
plays a central role in any governance process. Communication processes in EU
fi sheries management have improved signifi cantly over the last two decades, particularly through RACs, increased interaction between scientists and stakeholders
(e.g. in the form of observer status being given to RAC members at ICES meetings
and vice versa), and management bodies improving communication. Further, participation in planning and decision-making processes has increased signifi cantly in
regional decision-making processes as, for example, with the discard ban, to be
implemented in line with Article 15 in the new CFP reform (Council & Parliament
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance