Science and the User Perspective

Abstract

Jentoft (1993) distinguished between procedural legitimacy and content legitimacy. Prodecural legitimacy comes from involvement in the specification of implementation modalities while content legitimacy comes from shared understandings of objectives and knowledge. In the public debate on fisheries management the issue of sharing knowledge is often translated into the need to disseminate research results to fishermen, with the underlying understanding that everbody in the management process share the same basic paradigm, and some actors just know better than otheres within this paradigm. However, the issue is much more complex than this, as the public debate also frequently indicates: fundamentally different understandings of the fish stocks are frequently presented and these differences cannot be reduced entirely to differences in interest. These differences must be understood as a first step to a shared understanding or - maybe more realistically - to mutual acceptance of differences. 31 Within this process , fisheries research takes on the role of a regulatory science (Jasanoff, 1990). The research is carried out within specialised organizations wehre it produces formalised knowledge for use as a basis for management decisions and implementation by centralized bureaucracies interacting with representative democratic institutions. The management objectives in this model are in many cases not explicit, but the long term sustainability of the resource base has been the overriding objective whenever objectives are stated. The underlying rationality of this system is based on an assumption of predictability, ie an understanding that specific and predictable targets can be achieved by implementing specific regualtory measures such as catch or effort quotas or technical measures. 32 In relation to the knowledge base, scholars have argued that a decoupling of or even contradiction between the formalised research knowledge and the users' knowledge has inherent cultural contradiction (Finlayson, 1994), as a reflection of differing discourses and interests (Bailey and Yearley, 1999) or as a distortin resulting from the communicative properties of management institutions (Wilson and Degnbol, 2002; Wilson 2002). 33 .. gaps between the perspectives are closely associated with the development of management institutions which required a specific type of scientific knowledge, namely knowledge based on large scale averages with low resolution in space and time and which could only be constructedon basis of sampling schemes and models which tried to overcome local variation rather than understanding it. Fishers' knowledge is generally described as having the opposite focus - knowledge on the local variation of fish abundance in time and space is essential if one is to be a successful fisherman. 34 The scope of international fisheries management changed in the early 1990s when two new considerations entered the scence: the precautionary approach and the need to include considerations on the effects of the marine ecosystem at large into fisheries management. These additions where formalized in the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) and the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (UN, 1995). The precautionary approach implies a change in the role of knowledge. This change was first explicitly expressed in an international agreement text in the straddling fish stocks agreement which stated that 'States shall be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures'(UN, 1995). The precautionary principle changes the relationship between knowledge and exploitation. In an optimization scheme scientific knowledge is a useful and important but not mandatory guidance for management. Under the precautionary principle knowledge becomes a condition for exploitation in the first place and scientific uncertainty and allowable exploitation are coupled. 39 The requirement to include considerations on the effects of fisheries on ecosystems as expressed in the code of conduct for responsible fisheries implies a change in the scope of knowledge rather than a change in its basic role. the requirement that 'Management measures should not only ensure the conservation of target species but also of species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target species'(article 6.2, FAO, 1995) expands the scope of knowledge required for management immensely. The combination of this requirement with the precautionary principle potentially implies either infinte demands on science or the closure of most fisheries. These considerations are at their core a critique of the main fisheries research discourse on predictability - the precautionary approach is fundamentally about accepting the fact that uncertainty is an integral part of management. 39 Models were developed in which uncertainties were quantified and predictions were associated with probabilities of various outcomes. This approach may be described as stochastic probability because the basic concept of predictability was maintained but the predictions of the effects of management measures were expanded to include an estimate of the associated uncertainty.[...] The management discourse has implicitly changed its objectives from targeting production, with optimization being the core concept, to emphasizing conservation and risk management, with precautionarity being the core concept. The most important outcome to be predicted within the new stochastic predictability is, therefore, not catch but spawning stock biomass. 40 From around the 1990 the main research discourse can therefore be described as rational fisheries with an objective of risk avoidance in relation to stock conservation, based on stochastic predictability. Most of the basic assumptions and approaches of the optimization and deterministic predictability discourse have been maintained including notably that the basic unit of management still is the stock and the relevant scale of relevant knowledge and management is still large (100+ nautical miles). The new components are that : - these parameters can be estimated on the basis of data sampling schemes and estimation models and the estimates can be associated with uncertainty - The main non-explained source of variation is recruitment to the stock, but there is increased probability of low recruitment of low spawning stock sizes. - the effects of specific management measures can be predicted with an associated uncertainty to prediction. - Whereby fisheries management measures can be devised which will be associated with a high probability of avoiding adverse situations. -Adversity is defined as low spawning stock biomass. 41 There is no singular optimum state in the risk avoidance discourse as compared to the optimality discourse - there are danger zones of different intensity rather than a surface with a maximum. - The basic parameters of the risk avoidance discourse do not include parameters referring to societal benefit such as yield. 41 Regulatory fisheries research has succeeded in embracing and operationalizing the precautionary approach by adjusting its existing discourse of predictability through internalization of uncertainty. These developments in management and fisheries biology are basically within the same paradigm - quantifiable objectives can be set and fisheries biology can provide quantitative models, which will quantify the regulatory parameters in relation to quantifiable objectives. The contemporary management systems rely heavily on the predictability-based research paradigms. Most management systems rely on single stock TACs in one form or another. The requirement is real time knowledge of the state of the system and predictive models, with or without stochasticity. 41 There are principal limits to the predictability of any natural system beyond which it is impossible to assemble sufficient detailed data and models to provide any reliability (Wilson et al., 1994). 42 These limitations relate to the costs and the cognitive limitations of the production of research based knowledge for fisheries managment. Another limitation relates to the acceptance of the research discourse among users. The list of basic understandings within the various predictability discourses listed above may be in fundamental conflict with the experiences of fishers. One of the basic problems is scale and the concept of average fish stock. [...] The difference between the two approaches to scale is not so much range - fisheries operate over geographical scales that will routinely include several stock areas - but the scale of resolution. [...] To one, the local variation in abundance is a problem because it does not represent stock mean, and this problem is to be overcome through an appropriate sampling design. To the other, the local variation represents opportunities or is even a condition for profitable harvest. 43 Some of the key properties of such indicators would be that they are observable, make sense to both formal researchers and stakeholders, and are relevant to management. Indicators must be observable within the economic resources for research on a sustained basis, as well as by stakeholders, either directly or by transparency in the observation process. They should make sense in a research context and reflect features which correspond to stakeholders' understanding of the resource system. And they must be relevant to management by indicating direction of action and respond to management measures. The scale gap between science and stakeholders will be one of the major obstacles to overcome in this context. Indicators which are observable and make sense across scales may be hard to come by. 47