Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report

Martin Pastoors, Clara Ulrich, Douglas Clyde Wilson, Christine Röckmann, David Goldsborough, Ditte Degnbol, Charlotte Liv Berner, Teresa R. Johnson, Päivi Elisabet Haapasaari, Marion Dreyer, Ewen Bell, Edward Borodzicz, Kjellrun Hiis Hauge, Daniel Howell, Samu Mäntyniemi, David Miller, Robert Aps, George Tserpes, Sakari Kuikka, John Casey

Publikation: Bog/antologi/afhandling/rapportRapportForskning

Resumé

Stakeholder involvement is perceived as an important development in the European Common Fisheries Policy. But how can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The project Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH) was a 3 year project with 10 partners from the EU and Norway. It provided an integrated approach to stakeholder involvement into fisheries management and examined the institutions, practices and tools that allow complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity to be dealt with. The JAKFISH project reviewed the general literature on participatory modelling in natural resource management and derived a number of key recommendations from that review. The project also developed a fisheries management simulation game that was successfully applied in a number of occasions. In four different case studies, the JAKFISH project invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. We conclude that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. Modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. The crucial step in a science-stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing. The JAKFISH project also carried out social network analyses of the institutions and networks involved in six fisheries management systems (four in Europe, one in Australia and one in the USA). The results suggest that management systems with high participation in decision-making tended to have more disagreement about facts and values. When experts discuss matters more with colleagues from other stakeholder groups, their values, interests, opinions, and knowledge tend to differ. Consensus within a stakeholder group seems to be higher if the most important discussion partners are selected within the group. The discussion about the role of uncertainty in natural resource management and decision-making often assumes that it is the scientists that help other stakeholder better understand uncertainties and that this happens after the uncertainties have been identified. Our research refuted both assumption. Communication about uncertainty is clearly a two-way process and it already is happening during the problem framing and research process. An important difference has been identified between scientific proof-making and scientific justification. Scientific proof-making is evaluated against set of internal scientific criteria. Scientific justification is evaluated by a broader community consisting of scientific peers, government officials, industry stakeholders and environmental NGOs.

Whether scientific uncertainty becomes an issue in a policy making context, not only depends on the amount of uncertainty, but also on the stakes involved and the burden of proof placed on the science. The claim in the EU Habitats Directive that site designation is an exclusively scientific exercise places all the burden of proof on the science which then triggers disproportionate attention to scientific complexity and uncertainty, particularly where stakes are high. The JAKFISH project has shown that participatory modelling requires an effective facilitation strategy where scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers actively connect and discuss. There is a need to train the participants in these process. It needs the realization that participatory modelling both builds trust and is built on trust, that it takes time and effort and that the outcome is more than the individual parts.

Fingerprint

stakeholder
fishery
fishery management
modeling
resource management
natural resource
decision making
Common Fisheries Policy
fishery science
stock assessment
facilitation
social network
project
policy making
integrated approach
transparency
nongovernmental organization
train
learning
communication

Citer dette

Pastoors, M., Ulrich, C., Wilson, D. C., Röckmann, C., Goldsborough, D., Degnbol, D., ... Casey, J. (2012). Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report. Judgment and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders - Jakfish- project co-funded by the EC within the 7th Framework Programme.
Pastoors, Martin ; Ulrich, Clara ; Wilson, Douglas Clyde ; Röckmann, Christine ; Goldsborough, David ; Degnbol, Ditte ; Berner, Charlotte Liv ; Johnson, Teresa R. ; Haapasaari, Päivi Elisabet ; Dreyer, Marion ; Bell, Ewen ; Borodzicz, Edward ; Hiis Hauge, Kjellrun ; Howell, Daniel ; Mäntyniemi, Samu ; Miller, David ; Aps, Robert ; Tserpes, George ; Kuikka, Sakari ; Casey, John. / Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report. Judgment and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders - Jakfish- project co-funded by the EC within the 7th Framework Programme, 2012. 47 s.
@book{8d210c39df584501b641ec68cc170e13,
title = "Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report",
abstract = "Stakeholder involvement is perceived as an important development in the European Common Fisheries Policy. But how can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The project Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH) was a 3 year project with 10 partners from the EU and Norway. It provided an integrated approach to stakeholder involvement into fisheries management and examined the institutions, practices and tools that allow complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity to be dealt with. The JAKFISH project reviewed the general literature on participatory modelling in natural resource management and derived a number of key recommendations from that review. The project also developed a fisheries management simulation game that was successfully applied in a number of occasions. In four different case studies, the JAKFISH project invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. We conclude that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. Modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. The crucial step in a science-stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing. The JAKFISH project also carried out social network analyses of the institutions and networks involved in six fisheries management systems (four in Europe, one in Australia and one in the USA). The results suggest that management systems with high participation in decision-making tended to have more disagreement about facts and values. When experts discuss matters more with colleagues from other stakeholder groups, their values, interests, opinions, and knowledge tend to differ. Consensus within a stakeholder group seems to be higher if the most important discussion partners are selected within the group. The discussion about the role of uncertainty in natural resource management and decision-making often assumes that it is the scientists that help other stakeholder better understand uncertainties and that this happens after the uncertainties have been identified. Our research refuted both assumption. Communication about uncertainty is clearly a two-way process and it already is happening during the problem framing and research process. An important difference has been identified between scientific proof-making and scientific justification. Scientific proof-making is evaluated against set of internal scientific criteria. Scientific justification is evaluated by a broader community consisting of scientific peers, government officials, industry stakeholders and environmental NGOs. Whether scientific uncertainty becomes an issue in a policy making context, not only depends on the amount of uncertainty, but also on the stakes involved and the burden of proof placed on the science. The claim in the EU Habitats Directive that site designation is an exclusively scientific exercise places all the burden of proof on the science which then triggers disproportionate attention to scientific complexity and uncertainty, particularly where stakes are high. The JAKFISH project has shown that participatory modelling requires an effective facilitation strategy where scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers actively connect and discuss. There is a need to train the participants in these process. It needs the realization that participatory modelling both builds trust and is built on trust, that it takes time and effort and that the outcome is more than the individual parts.",
author = "Martin Pastoors and Clara Ulrich and Wilson, {Douglas Clyde} and Christine R{\"o}ckmann and David Goldsborough and Ditte Degnbol and Berner, {Charlotte Liv} and Johnson, {Teresa R.} and Haapasaari, {P{\"a}ivi Elisabet} and Marion Dreyer and Ewen Bell and Edward Borodzicz and {Hiis Hauge}, Kjellrun and Daniel Howell and Samu M{\"a}ntyniemi and David Miller and Robert Aps and George Tserpes and Sakari Kuikka and John Casey",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
language = "English",
publisher = "Judgment and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders - Jakfish- project co-funded by the EC within the 7th Framework Programme",

}

Pastoors, M, Ulrich, C, Wilson, DC, Röckmann, C, Goldsborough, D, Degnbol, D, Berner, CL, Johnson, TR, Haapasaari, PE, Dreyer, M, Bell, E, Borodzicz, E, Hiis Hauge, K, Howell, D, Mäntyniemi, S, Miller, D, Aps, R, Tserpes, G, Kuikka, S & Casey, J 2012, Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report. Judgment and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders - Jakfish- project co-funded by the EC within the 7th Framework Programme.

Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report. / Pastoors, Martin; Ulrich, Clara; Wilson, Douglas Clyde; Röckmann, Christine; Goldsborough, David; Degnbol, Ditte; Berner, Charlotte Liv; Johnson, Teresa R.; Haapasaari, Päivi Elisabet; Dreyer, Marion; Bell, Ewen ; Borodzicz, Edward; Hiis Hauge, Kjellrun; Howell, Daniel; Mäntyniemi, Samu; Miller, David; Aps, Robert; Tserpes, George; Kuikka, Sakari; Casey, John.

Judgment and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders - Jakfish- project co-funded by the EC within the 7th Framework Programme, 2012. 47 s.

Publikation: Bog/antologi/afhandling/rapportRapportForskning

TY - RPRT

T1 - Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report

AU - Pastoors, Martin

AU - Ulrich, Clara

AU - Wilson, Douglas Clyde

AU - Röckmann, Christine

AU - Goldsborough, David

AU - Degnbol, Ditte

AU - Berner, Charlotte Liv

AU - Johnson, Teresa R.

AU - Haapasaari, Päivi Elisabet

AU - Dreyer, Marion

AU - Bell, Ewen

AU - Borodzicz, Edward

AU - Hiis Hauge, Kjellrun

AU - Howell, Daniel

AU - Mäntyniemi, Samu

AU - Miller, David

AU - Aps, Robert

AU - Tserpes, George

AU - Kuikka, Sakari

AU - Casey, John

PY - 2012/2

Y1 - 2012/2

N2 - Stakeholder involvement is perceived as an important development in the European Common Fisheries Policy. But how can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The project Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH) was a 3 year project with 10 partners from the EU and Norway. It provided an integrated approach to stakeholder involvement into fisheries management and examined the institutions, practices and tools that allow complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity to be dealt with. The JAKFISH project reviewed the general literature on participatory modelling in natural resource management and derived a number of key recommendations from that review. The project also developed a fisheries management simulation game that was successfully applied in a number of occasions. In four different case studies, the JAKFISH project invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. We conclude that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. Modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. The crucial step in a science-stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing. The JAKFISH project also carried out social network analyses of the institutions and networks involved in six fisheries management systems (four in Europe, one in Australia and one in the USA). The results suggest that management systems with high participation in decision-making tended to have more disagreement about facts and values. When experts discuss matters more with colleagues from other stakeholder groups, their values, interests, opinions, and knowledge tend to differ. Consensus within a stakeholder group seems to be higher if the most important discussion partners are selected within the group. The discussion about the role of uncertainty in natural resource management and decision-making often assumes that it is the scientists that help other stakeholder better understand uncertainties and that this happens after the uncertainties have been identified. Our research refuted both assumption. Communication about uncertainty is clearly a two-way process and it already is happening during the problem framing and research process. An important difference has been identified between scientific proof-making and scientific justification. Scientific proof-making is evaluated against set of internal scientific criteria. Scientific justification is evaluated by a broader community consisting of scientific peers, government officials, industry stakeholders and environmental NGOs. Whether scientific uncertainty becomes an issue in a policy making context, not only depends on the amount of uncertainty, but also on the stakes involved and the burden of proof placed on the science. The claim in the EU Habitats Directive that site designation is an exclusively scientific exercise places all the burden of proof on the science which then triggers disproportionate attention to scientific complexity and uncertainty, particularly where stakes are high. The JAKFISH project has shown that participatory modelling requires an effective facilitation strategy where scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers actively connect and discuss. There is a need to train the participants in these process. It needs the realization that participatory modelling both builds trust and is built on trust, that it takes time and effort and that the outcome is more than the individual parts.

AB - Stakeholder involvement is perceived as an important development in the European Common Fisheries Policy. But how can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The project Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH) was a 3 year project with 10 partners from the EU and Norway. It provided an integrated approach to stakeholder involvement into fisheries management and examined the institutions, practices and tools that allow complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity to be dealt with. The JAKFISH project reviewed the general literature on participatory modelling in natural resource management and derived a number of key recommendations from that review. The project also developed a fisheries management simulation game that was successfully applied in a number of occasions. In four different case studies, the JAKFISH project invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. We conclude that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. Modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. The crucial step in a science-stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing. The JAKFISH project also carried out social network analyses of the institutions and networks involved in six fisheries management systems (four in Europe, one in Australia and one in the USA). The results suggest that management systems with high participation in decision-making tended to have more disagreement about facts and values. When experts discuss matters more with colleagues from other stakeholder groups, their values, interests, opinions, and knowledge tend to differ. Consensus within a stakeholder group seems to be higher if the most important discussion partners are selected within the group. The discussion about the role of uncertainty in natural resource management and decision-making often assumes that it is the scientists that help other stakeholder better understand uncertainties and that this happens after the uncertainties have been identified. Our research refuted both assumption. Communication about uncertainty is clearly a two-way process and it already is happening during the problem framing and research process. An important difference has been identified between scientific proof-making and scientific justification. Scientific proof-making is evaluated against set of internal scientific criteria. Scientific justification is evaluated by a broader community consisting of scientific peers, government officials, industry stakeholders and environmental NGOs. Whether scientific uncertainty becomes an issue in a policy making context, not only depends on the amount of uncertainty, but also on the stakes involved and the burden of proof placed on the science. The claim in the EU Habitats Directive that site designation is an exclusively scientific exercise places all the burden of proof on the science which then triggers disproportionate attention to scientific complexity and uncertainty, particularly where stakes are high. The JAKFISH project has shown that participatory modelling requires an effective facilitation strategy where scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers actively connect and discuss. There is a need to train the participants in these process. It needs the realization that participatory modelling both builds trust and is built on trust, that it takes time and effort and that the outcome is more than the individual parts.

M3 - Report

BT - Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report

PB - Judgment and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders - Jakfish- project co-funded by the EC within the 7th Framework Programme

ER -

Pastoors M, Ulrich C, Wilson DC, Röckmann C, Goldsborough D, Degnbol D et al. Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders. JAKFISH D1.5 Final Report. Judgment and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders - Jakfish- project co-funded by the EC within the 7th Framework Programme, 2012. 47 s.