Science and participation in governance of the Baltic Sea fisheries

Abstract

This paper is an empirical study of the role of science in environmental governance using a case study of the Baltic Sea fi sheries. In an attempt to encourage stronger participation in the European fi shery governance, the European Commission established the Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BS RAC) in 2006. Conceptualized as a functionalistic and deliberative forum, the BS RAC consists of representatives of the fi shery sector and other interest groups and provides advice to the European Commission on fi shery matters. This paper examines how science and the scientifi c advice are perceived, interpreted and used by the stakeholders in the BS RAC. The scientifi c advice cannot overcome the confl ict between the different rationalities of, for example, nature conservationists and fi shery representatives. Unlike most environmental NGOs, fi shery representatives tend to show low levels of trust towards the scientifi c data and the resulting advice as well as scientists in general. As a consequence, science lies often in the centre of the debate, where one side uses the scientifi c advice as the foundation of its position while the other side points at scientifi c uncertainty and/or competing knowledge to promote its alternative.

Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive comanagement processes

“…In addition, Poland is characterized by an authoritarian culture, and both decisionmakers and stakeholders often have very little experience with deliberative decision-making. Skepticism and distrust towards the EU, the national administration, and science is especially high among Polish fishermen (Stöhr and Chabay 2010). Environmental NGOs, though fairly influential at the European level, still play a somewhat marginal role in Poland.…”

Ecosystem Services in the Baltic Sea

“…Decisions on how fishery resources are allocated are taken by the EU Council of Ministers every year. Before the decision is taken the scientific community through ICES, and the fishery industry and NGOs through the Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council (BSRAC), give their recommendations (Stohr and Chabay 2010). The CFP is decisive as it, in a direct manner, influence national law.…”

The Governance of the Wolf-Human Relationship in Europe

“…Stöhr & Chabay, 2010). However, in wolf governance this appears to be less of an issue as such and in our cases, some governance arrangements give room for other actors, besides experts, to bring knowledge input by way of wolf monitoring and surveillance.…”

“…This conflict can be seen as a result of the EU's strategy of standardizing policies and the monitoring of its implementation within its area of influence. While from the EC's perspective, this strategy ensures equal treatment for all member states, it has been criticized for being ignorant for the special conditions in particular countries and regions (Linell & Boitani, 2012;Hiedanpää & Bromley, 2011;Stöhr & Chabay, 2010). Similarly, there is an ongoing dispute in Germany whether to re-conceptualize wolves by including them in the "hunting act" (Jagtrecht), in which case a different legal set of rules would apply.…”