66
2013 , 35). Both CFP reform and the new multispecies plan to be fi nalised in 2015
offer possibilities of the new interactions between the regional triangle of Member
States (via BALTFISH), the stakeholder sector (via the BS RAC) and the EU
Commission and hence offer both challenges and new opportunities for improved
communication between these new management bodies.
The problematic aspects mentioned with respect to uncertainty treatment also
come from inadequate communication. One example is the BS RAC: although it is
a forum for opposing views to come together (i.e. NGOs and industry), communication is hindered by the uneven representation ratio of the two parties in the BS RAC
and also poor material resources for working effectively on the questions at stake.
Further, because of different normative assumptions (e.g. long-term versus shortterm value perspectives), uncertainty is interpreted differently by different actors
and often cannot be reconciled (Linke et al. 2011 ; cf. Renn 2008 ).
Finally, communication is central to the interaction between scientists and management. Communication needs to be a two-way process in which mutual trust is
built between actors. The goal should be to assist stakeholders in understanding risk
managers’ decisions and the rationale of risk assessment results (Renn 2008 ) so as
to enable them to make informed choices in relation to their interests and values
(Johannesen and Lassen 2014 ). To achieve these objectives, risk communication is
a task for professionals, something which is rarely understood. Trust can be built if
there is a willingness to admit that uncertainty exists in risk assessment results.
Trust will also lead to legitimacy (Dankel et al. 2012 ; Renn 2008 ). We have illustrated based on our interviews that communication processes in the Baltic Sea fi sheries sector are often lacking because trust is missing. Whether the new structures
that have emerged after the 2013 CFP reform will improve mutual trust remains to
be seen.
3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
We have suggested in this chapter that the main challenges of fi sheries governance
in the Baltic Sea relate to risk assessment –risk management interactions and their
treatment, communication of different forms of uncertainty, harmonisation of the
(interdisciplinary) knowledge base and the organisation of stakeholder participation
to improve communication. Based on our case studies, we conclude that current
governance structures are not yet capable of fully addressing the problems of scientifi c uncertainty , interpretations of this uncertainty and connected misunderstandings amongst the different actors in terms of reaching desired outcomes of
sustainable fi sheries in the Baltic Sea. Increased interactions amongst individual
actors, for example, in RACs as well as between different management organisations (e.g. ICES , RAC and the EU Commission), as well as more developed institutional and procedural designs for stakeholder involvement in management and
decision-making at the regional level, are urgently needed for improving environmental governance of the Baltic Sea.
P. Sellke et al.
2013 , 35). Both CFP reform and the new multispecies plan to be fi nalised in 2015
offer possibilities of the new interactions between the regional triangle of Member
States (via BALTFISH), the stakeholder sector (via the BS RAC) and the EU
Commission and hence offer both challenges and new opportunities for improved
communication between these new management bodies.
The problematic aspects mentioned with respect to uncertainty treatment also
come from inadequate communication. One example is the BS RAC: although it is
a forum for opposing views to come together (i.e. NGOs and industry), communication is hindered by the uneven representation ratio of the two parties in the BS RAC
and also poor material resources for working effectively on the questions at stake.
Further, because of different normative assumptions (e.g. long-term versus shortterm value perspectives), uncertainty is interpreted differently by different actors
and often cannot be reconciled (Linke et al. 2011 ; cf. Renn 2008 ).
Finally, communication is central to the interaction between scientists and management. Communication needs to be a two-way process in which mutual trust is
built between actors. The goal should be to assist stakeholders in understanding risk
managers’ decisions and the rationale of risk assessment results (Renn 2008 ) so as
to enable them to make informed choices in relation to their interests and values
(Johannesen and Lassen 2014 ). To achieve these objectives, risk communication is
a task for professionals, something which is rarely understood. Trust can be built if
there is a willingness to admit that uncertainty exists in risk assessment results.
Trust will also lead to legitimacy (Dankel et al. 2012 ; Renn 2008 ). We have illustrated based on our interviews that communication processes in the Baltic Sea fi sheries sector are often lacking because trust is missing. Whether the new structures
that have emerged after the 2013 CFP reform will improve mutual trust remains to
be seen.
3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
We have suggested in this chapter that the main challenges of fi sheries governance
in the Baltic Sea relate to risk assessment –risk management interactions and their
treatment, communication of different forms of uncertainty, harmonisation of the
(interdisciplinary) knowledge base and the organisation of stakeholder participation
to improve communication. Based on our case studies, we conclude that current
governance structures are not yet capable of fully addressing the problems of scientifi c uncertainty , interpretations of this uncertainty and connected misunderstandings amongst the different actors in terms of reaching desired outcomes of
sustainable fi sheries in the Baltic Sea. Increased interactions amongst individual
actors, for example, in RACs as well as between different management organisations (e.g. ICES , RAC and the EU Commission), as well as more developed institutional and procedural designs for stakeholder involvement in management and
decision-making at the regional level, are urgently needed for improving environmental governance of the Baltic Sea.
P. Sellke et al.