A communicative turnaround: Shifting the burden of proof in European fisheries governance

Current and prospective changes in European fisheries governance suggest not only a “communicative turn” but a complete turnaround in the relationships between government, science, and the fishing industry. At the heart of these changes are the so-called Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and the idea of partially replacing the burden of proof on the resource users (fishing industry). This change entails new forms of interaction between fishers’ representatives, other stakeholders (e.g. NGOs), policy-makers and scientists. By drawing on experiences from the Baltic Sea RAC, the analysis focuses on two aspects of fisheries governance: institutional design and the process of negotiation and decision-making. It is concluded that to allow for a partial shift in the burden of proof, stakeholder organisations such as RACs need to adapt both institutionally as well as process-wise to enable a more constructive and responsible fisheries governance system.

[1]  Grant Murray,et al.  Lessons Learned from Reconstructing Interactions Between Local Ecological Knowledge, Fisheries Science, and Fisheries Management in the Commercial Fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada , 2006 .

[2]  J. Thorpe,et al.  Crisis in the World's Fisheries: People, Problems and Policies , 1991 .

[3]  Petter Holm,et al.  A brief catalogue of failures: Framing evaluation and learning in fisheries resource management , 2007 .

[4]  J. Annala.  Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries , 2007 .

[5]  T. Gieryn,et al.  Boundaries of Science , 1995 .

[6]  Brian Wynne,et al.  May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. , 2004 .

[7]  M. Edelstein.  Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development , 1998 .

[8]  K. Bäckstrand.  Science, Uncertainty and Participation in Global Environmental Governance , 2004 .

[9]  D. VanderZwaag.  The Precautionary Principle and Marine Environmental Protection: Slippery Shores, Rough Seas, and Rising Normative Tides , 2002 .

[10]  Hirotsugu Uchida,et al.  Case studies in fisheries self-governance , 2008 .

[11]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re‐assessing the expert‐lay divide , 2008 .

[12]  T. Gieryn.  Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line , 1999 .

[13]  S. Gezelius.  The Problem of Implementing Policies for Sustainable Fishing , 2008 .

[14]  H Roberts,et al.  Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity , 1994 .

[15]  S. Shackley,et al.  Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority , 1996 .

[16]  A. Giddens.  The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[17]  D. Wilson.  The Paradoxes of Transparency: Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in Europe , 2010 .

[18]  J. Cook.  Institutions: The CEIP Fund. Inc. , 1989 .

[19]  T. Hegland,et al.  The Regional Advisory Councils’ current capacities and unforeseen benefits , 2012 .

[20]  A. Mol,et al.  The tower of Babel: Different perceptions and controversies on change and status of North Sea fish stocks in multi-stakeholder settings , 2010 .

[21]  N. D. Sadeleer,et al.  Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules , 2003 .

[22]  P. Stern,et al.  Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making , 2008 .

[23]  M. Korstanje.  The Risk Society: Towards a new modernity , 2009 .

[24]  Rainer Froese,et al.  Comments on FAO's State of Fisheries and Aquaculture, or ‘SOFIA 2010’ , 2012 .

[25]  M. Bjørkan.  Fishing for Advice : the case of the Norwegian Reference Fleet , 2011 .

[26]  Funtowicz Silvio,et al.  Models of Science and Policy , 2007 .

[27]  T. Gray,et al.  Fisheries science and sustainability in international policy: a study of failure in the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy , 2005 .

[28]  Svein Jentoft,et al.  Beyond fisheries management: The Phronetic dimension , 2006 .

[29]  Mike Fitzpatrick,et al.  The burden of proof in co-management and results-based management: the elephant on the deck! , 2011 .

[30]  B. Flyvbjerg,et al.  Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again , 2001 .

[31]  K. Ruddle,et al.  What is “Ecological” in Local Ecological Knowledge? Lessons from Canada and Vietnam , 2011 .

[32]  J. Raakjær.  A Fisheries Management System in Crisis - the EU Common Fisheries Policy , 2009 .

[33]  R. Lidskog,et al.  The Role of Science in Environmental Regimes: The Case of LRTAP , 2002 .

[34]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[35]  Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy , 2012 .

[36]  Petter Holm,et al.  On the Relationship Between Science and Fishermen's Knowledge in a Resource Management Context , 2003 .

[37]  Sebastian Linke,et al.  Unravelling science-policy interactions in environmental risk governance of the Baltic Sea: comparing fisheries and eutrophication , 2014 .

[38]  Douglas Clyde Wilson,et al.  Spatial planning on the North Sea: A case of cross-scale linkages , 2008 .

[39]  M. Fogarty,et al.  Precautionary management of marine fisheries: Moving beyond burden of proof , 2002 .

[40]  A. Coers,et al.  Stakeholder participation in the management of North East Atlantic pelagic fish stocks: The future role of the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council in a reformed CFP , 2012 .

[41]  R. Hannesson.  Fisheries Mismanagement: The Case of the North Atlantic Cod , 1996 .

[42]  Sebastian Linke,et al.  The Regional Advisory Councils: What is Their Potential to Incorporate Stakeholder Knowledge into Fisheries Governance? , 2011, AMBIO.

[43]  B. Latour.  Science in Action , 1987 .

[44]  S. Jasanoff.  States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[45]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[46]  D. Wilson,et al.  How the participants talk about “participation” in Mid-Atlantic fisheries management , 1998 .

[47]  K. Hoydal.  Viewpoint: the interface between scientific advice and fisheries managementa , 2007 .

[48]  Svein Jentoft,et al.  Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance , 2007 .

[49]  Lorenzo Motos,et al.  The knowledge base for fisheries management , 2006 .

[50]  Dean Bavington,et al.  Local Ecological Knowledge, Science, Participation and Fisheries Governance in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Complex, Contested and Changing Relationship , 2005 .

[51]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[52]  S. Pooley,et al.  Fishing for Truth: A Sociological Analysis of Northern Cod Stock Assessments from 1977-1990. Alan Christopher Finlayson , 1997 .

[53]  L. Griffin.  Scales of knowledge: North Sea fisheries governance, the local fisherman and the European scientist , 2009 .

[54]  T. Gray,et al.  The 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy's system of governance—rhetoric or reality? , 2003 .

[55]  I. Chabay,et al.  Science and participation in governance of the Baltic Sea fisheries , 2010 .

[56]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A Case Study in Communicating Scientific Information , 1989 .

[57]  Ronán Long.  The role of regional advisory councils in the European Common Fisheries Policy: legal constraints and future options. , 2010 .