Policy making on basis of knowledge – the challenge for research integration

1. Policy making on basis of knowledge – the challenge for research integration FAME workshop on Social and Natural Scientific aAdvice in Marine Renewable Resources 6 June 2007, Esbejrg Poul Degnbol Scientific adviser DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs European Commission

2. Trailer • Policy drivers and research – EU Common Fishery Policy case • Example – management plans • Interdisciplinary research • Delivery of knowledge

3. Policy drivers– Common Fishery Policy case

4. The Common Fisheries Policy • A common policy for the management of fisheries and aquaculture, foreseen in the Treaties • Rationale: fish are a natural and mobile resource which is a common property • First measures in 1970, CFP established 1983, reformed ~ every 10 years, most recently 2002 • The CFP is a heavily science-based policy area

5. The four policy areas of the CFP • Conservation and limitation of the environmental impact of fishing • to protect fish resources by regulating the amount of fish taken from the sea, by allowing young fish to reproduce, and by ensuring that measures are respected. • Structures and fleet management • to help the fishing and aquaculture industries adapt their equipment and organisations to the constraints imposed by scarce resources and the market;  measures aimed at creating a balance between fishing effort and available fish resources are also in place; • Markets • to maintain a common organisation of the market in fish products and to match supply and demand for the benefit of both producers and consumers;    • Relations with the outside world • to set up fisheries partnerships agreements and to negotiate at the international level within regional and international fisheries organisations for common conservation measures in deep-sea fisheries.

6. CFP objectives • 1. The Common Fisheries Policy shall ensure exploitation of living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions. • For this purpose, the Community shall apply the precautionary approach in taking measures designed to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. It shall aim at a progressive implementation of an eco-system-based approach to fisheries management. • It shall aim to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities and taking into account the interests of consumers. • 2. The Common Fisheries Policy shall be guided by the following principles of good governance: • (a) clear definition of responsibilities at the Community, national and local levels; • (b) a decision-making process based on sound scientific advice which delivers timely results; • (c) broad involvement of stakeholders at all stages of the policy from conception to implementation; • (d) consistence with other Community policies, in particular with environmental, social, regional, development, health and consumer protection policies.

7. The research based advisory process • “The CFP shall be guided by …a decision-making process based on sound scientific advice which delivers timely results” FP7 DCR Data collection Policy decisions Research Research Institutes Stakeholder groups ACFA RACs Council ICES International Council for Exploration of the Sea Proposals Data Analysis Research results European Commission STECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries Advice European Parlament Requests for advice

8. Policy directions • EC policies • CFP objectives • Maritime Policy • Marine Strategy • International agreements • UNCLOS – UN fish stocks agreement • International soft law • FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries • World Summit on Sustainable Development • International agreements and soft law with important fisheries implications • Convention on Biological Diversity

9. Policy issues • Precautionary approach (UN stocks agreement and CFP) • Ecosystem approach (WSSD and CFP) • Consider both fisheries impact on ecosystem and ecosystem impacts on fisheries • Restore/maintain stocks at MSY (WSSD) • Inclusion of societal impact considerations (general EC policy) • Good governance (CFP) • Change from short term decisions to long term management plans • Transparency • Consultation and participation

10. Example: Management plans

11. Example – North Sea cod recovery plan • From 1991 the biological advice was that seen in isolation cod should not be caught or a zero TAC • TACs were set – to protect industry and to enable mixed fisheries to continue • Indications of extensive black landings and high-grading as a response to reduced TACs • The fishing mortality remained high – even increased – and the stock continued going down

12. Cod in the North Sea Yield Recruitment Parent stock Fishing mortality

13. EU Cod recovery plan 2004 • 2. The TACs shall not exceed a level of catches which a scientific evaluation, carried out by the STECF in the light of the most recent report of the ICES, has indicated will result in an increase of 30 % in the quantities of mature fish in the sea at the end of the year of their application, compared to the quantities estimated to have been in the sea at the start of that year. • 3. The Council shall not adopt a TAC whose capture is predicted by the STECF, in the light of the most recent report of the ICES, to generate in its year of application a fishing mortality rate greater than the following values: • Cod in the Kattegat 0,60 • Cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak and eastern Channel 0,65 • Cod to the west of Scotland 0,60 • Cod in the Irish Sea 0,72 • Question to research: • Which TAC will result in a 30% increase in SSB? • Which TAC will result in a specific F?

14. Cod recovery plan outcomes • BUT • Due to implementation problems and fleet adaptations catches were not controlled by TAC’s • Supplementary effort controls were introduced but were not sufficient to control catches T • Therefore, actual catches (and even landings) became poorly known • ICES and STECF could therefore not estimate the present stock size or F • And quantitative advice on the TAC which would be compatible with a 30% increase or a specific F could not be given • Good (but maybe not useful) answer from research advice: • we can’t give the number to implement your plan. (but the plan is there) • Use effort management instead (but the CFP is based on TAC’s) • Possible response: change the recovery plan • so that it’s implementation is robust to lack of estimates of SSB or F • Will generate questions for advice which can actually be answered

15. A chain is only as good as the weakest link • There are close linkages between • The overall policy (the CFP) • The specific management instruments (the choice of mix of TACs, days at sea, technical measures etc for a specific fishery) • Implementation setup • The ability and incentives for the fleets to adapt • And the scientific advice required to support decisions • The data required and the ability to produce operational advice • The cost of producing the data and the advice • The institutional framework required to produce the advice • The character and substance of the advice • We must consider implications elsewhere in the system (including the research based advice) when we discuss policies and management measures

16. Cod recovery plan questions • Which TAC will result in a 30% increase in SSB? • Which TAC will result in a specific F? • The linkage between a TAC and the resulting F or SSB depends on • The biological dynamics of the fish population • Starting population, recruitment, ecosystem environment • All of which is only known with uncertainty • The adaptation of the fleet to management measures • The character of the fishery • Incentives to comply or not • Knowledge and technological capacity for alternative tactics • The control and enforcement regime

17. The fisheries management system

18. Fishery system Nature: Variation within regime Regime shifts Society: Fleet adaptation Strategic decision system /Management strategy Objectives Performance criteria Relevant Knowledge Implementation framework Management plan Sanctions Monitoring requirements Tactical decision system Corrections to objectives (‘flexibility’) Accept of knowledge Harvest control rule If state=xx then do yy Objectives Implementation Knowledge

19. The normative string - Objectives and performance • Achievement of explicit and implicit objectives • Sustainability • Maintenance of reproductive capacity • Delivery of ecosystem services • Societal benefits • High long term yields • Efficiency • Justice/Equity • Performance criteria • Robustness • Cost efficiency • Transparency and legitimacy

20. The regulatory string – implementation means • Implementation means – basic choice of main instruments • Output - TACs • Input – effort • Technical measures incl closed areas • Allocation mechanisms – ownership and transferability • The choice of implementation and allocation means defines distributions of societal benefits

21. The cognitive string – what is relevant, valid and sufficient knowledge? • The relevance of knowledge relates to objectives • The validity of knowledge relates to acceptance by stakeholders • Sufficiency of knowledge relates to the desired robustness of the management strategy

22. The cognitive string – learning institutions • Uncertainty is here to stay! • Predict or learn by experience from implementation • Passive adaptivity: predict and correct through next years prediction • Requires either that relevant reference points can be estimated and that predictions make sense technically and operationally • Active adaptivity: explore a range of exploitation ranges and adapt • Stocks for which data series short or only one state known: explore production dynamics • Target reference points for stocks where biological interactions are important or only low productivity seen • Regime shifts? • Stocks where we are uncertain about present state or stock dynamics • Development of adaptive approaches • Changes in types of knowledge used and the communication of knowledge • Development of learning management institutions

23. Fishery system Nature: Variation within regime Regime shifts Society: Fleet adaptation Strategic decision system /Management strategy Objectives Performance criteria Relevant Knowledge Implementation framework Management plan Sanctions Monitoring requirements Tactical decision system Corrections to objectives (‘flexibility’) Accept of knowledge Harvest control rule If state=xx then do yy Objectives Implementation Knowledge

24. Future fisheries management science research • Development of management strategies • Post- evaluation of management strategies • Adaptation within strategies • Re-evaluation of objectives trade off • Implementation adaptation • Learning and communication • Fisheries systems performance • The details of management strategies • Multi-objective development • Evaluation of implementation modalities - instruments • Fleet adaptations • Knowledge interactions • Decision tactics (HCR etc) Each of these areas require interdisciplinary research involving ecologists, fisheries biologists, economists and sociologists

25. Interdisciplinary research should be the norm rather than the exception

26. Interdisciplinary research

27. More than the sum of disciplines? • Interdisciplinary research is relevant for research on the interactions between subjects studied by various disciplines • Understanding interactions implies that the study of the interacting parts should be defined by their interaction - Contributions from each discipline in interdisciplinary research should be framed by the interactions • Disciplinary integrity must be combined with openness to address interaction issues

28. The tunnel vision trap • The discipline frames the worldview • Objectives: • Biological sustainability? • Efficiency? • Democracy and equity? • Implementation • MPA’s ... • ITQ’s • Participation • Knowledge requirement • More ecological research • More economic research • More social science research • Leads to forming research questions which will be answered by this worldview • Leads to selection of researchers with likeminded view

29. The methods trap • You look for areas where the methods you know may be applied • You cooperate with what resonates with your discourse • Selection of other disciplinary approaches on basis of resonance with your own methods preferences leads to exclusion of subjects of study and perspectives • The method defines what is relevant for study!

30. The method defines what is relevant to study and the research question • It is nice to own a Rembrandt painting and a Stradivarious violin • But to own an Rembrandt violin and a stradivarious painting? • Maybe the sequence should be: • What is relevant to study, what is the policy issue? • What is the research question? • What methods need we apply to address the question? • What are the relevant disciplines? • How can they interact?

31. The existing knowledge trap • You study the issues you know about – leads to selection of issues raised within your own discipline • And exclusion of issues you don’t know about including issues raised in other disciplines • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence • Who raises the interactions issues?

32. Interdisciplinary research requires • Openness • To the relevance of research questions raised outside your discipline • to other disciplinary discourses • to very different methodologies • Risk taking • High risk research – unsure what the products will be • High risk for your career • You may be considered less qualified in your own discipline • You may publish less • You may find fewer fora to present your work • You may loose the next grant because the last produced less than hoped for • A lot of devotion to interactions before and during implementation

33. Knowledge and advice delivery

34. Delivery mechanisms • In Europe the ’Vatican model’ was ruling untill recently – black smoke from a black box • Now the ’good patriarch model’ is ruling – we know best but we are prepared to help you understand • Proceed to ’Socratic model’ – facilitate exploration of options

35. Exploratory and interactive delivery • Fisheries management has multiple objectives • Very often incompatible in the short term • Sometimes incompatible in the long term • There are many possible combinations of management measures which will lead to different trade-off between these objectives • Research based knowledge cannot make the choices but can illuminate the expected trade off between various objectives for various solutions • Research based advice should therefore be delivered in an interactive exploratory process • Not easy! • Do we have th right institutional setup for it? • Transaction costs? • Are the researchers and stakeholders up to it?

36. A couple of refs • Degnbol, P., and McCay, B. J. 2007. Unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages in fisheries systems – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64. • Degnbol,_P, H. Gislason, S. Hanna, S. Jentoft, J. R. Nielsen, S. Sverdrup-Jensen, D. C. Wilson, 2006. Painting the floor with a hammer: Technical fixes in fisheries management. Marine Policy 30 (2006) 534–543