The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) occupies a central role in the advice system to support the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) in the European Union (EU). Despite improvements, its capacity to deliver ecosystem advice seems to be far from a fully functional operational framework. To what extent availability of appropriate scientific advice is a barrier for a more widespread use of an EAFM in Europe remains an open question. Building on the findings of a large research project, this article explores what advice ICES can provide. The article concludes that: (i) ICES has taken a leading role in generating an EAFM framework in which management decisions can operate; (ii) the advice “suppliers” and the advice “users” agree on the feasibility of using existing knowledge to “do EAFM now”; (iii) ICES can address a range of shortcomings, but some of the present bottlenecks demand concerted action between the advisory system and the political realm. The implementation of an EAFM requires consistency between science and management. ICES appears as well-suited to facilitate the dialogue on applying an EAFM in the EU, but it is unrealistic to expect ICES to produce all the answers.
In the North Sea, many oil and gas fields will reach the end of their productivity and their associated structures will be decommissioned. OSPAR decision 98/3 prescribes removal of all disused offshore structures as the only acceptable decommissioning option. This policy is the legacy of the 1995 Brent Spar incident, which resulted in the current dominant discourse of 'Hands off the Oceans,' ruling out the conversion of oil and gas rigs into artificial reefs (Rigs-to-Reefs (RtR)). The shift from a conservation to a restoration paradigm could open up the RtR debate. In this paper, a discourse analysis is carried out to discern whether and how ideas about RtR and ecosystem restoration are articulated to challenge the dominant 'Hands off the Oceans' discourse and thereby bring about change in North Sea decommissioning policy. A discourse analytic framework is applied to elucidate whether an 'RtR as Restoration' discourse can be distinguished and how competing claims are presented in the various storylines. Our analysis shows an 'RtR as Restoration' discourse, consisting of four different storylines. Given the fragmented nature of this discourse, the 'RtR as Restoration' discourse will not overcome the dominant 'Hands off the Oceans' discourse.
Using a perspective from the sociology of knowledge, this study identifies some ‘dilemmas of participatory research’. We look at how social relationships between fishers and scientists develop around the exchange of fishers’ knowledge in particular institutional contexts. We survey the general types and global examples of fisher–scientist relationships in terms of how they approach the integration of fishers’ and scientists’ knowledge. Based on an empirical study of three European cases of participatory research, we then discuss five dilemmas that tend to characterize fisher–scientist relationships. These dilemmas centre on the relationship between fisheries research, fishery regulations and fishers as subjects of both regulation and participatory research endeavours. We argue that these dilemmas – experienced by both scientists and fishers – express an underlying tension between ‘empowering’ fishers to support the effective management of the fishing commons and the bureaucratic need to regulate the fishery as an industry.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.