ices and precautionary approach
DESCRIPTION
In this paper, the focus is on the process of boundary construction between science and policy in the domain of fisheries management. The implemention of the precautionary approach within the ICES advisory framework was initiated in the mid 1990s and resulted in a system of biological reference points that were intended to guide biological advice and fisheries management. This meant that the precautionary approach came to be a boundary ordering device between science and policy. The ICES interpretation of the precautionary approach meant the pre-existing advisory framework could be slightly amended to include the new “requirements”. The discussion about the so-called “limit reference points” and “precautionary reference points” clearly illustrates how these concepts where intended to divide responsibilities between science and policy. Nevertheless, the introduction of the precautionary approach resulted in a shift of policy responsibility into the scientific realm. The interests and positions of management authorities and stakeholders were often pre-judged in the process of defining precautionary reference points. The lack of transparency about the the scientific basis of precautionary reference points has contributed to a detoriation of credibility of scientific advice on fisheries management.TRANSCRIPT
Defining reference points for the Precautionary Approach:
persistent attempts to neatly arrange the boundary between science and policy
Martin Pastoors
How has ICES operated in defining precautionary reference points?
Three conclusions
1. Reference points are not science and were never intended to be science
2. Uncertainty was hidden instead of at the center
3. Boundary between science and policy remains contested
The precautionary approach as a political decision
Rio declaration (1992)
(Principle 15) “lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
Making the political decision more operational
UN Straddling Fish Stock and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks agreement (1995)
“Two types of precautionary reference points should be used: conservation, or limit, reference points and management, or target, reference points.”
1997: EC asks ICES to investigate reference points with 95, 90 and 80% risk levels
ICES assumed a probability level
“The precautionary basis for advice given by ACFM will be that, for a given stock, the probability of exceeding the limit should be no more than 5% in any given year.”
Source: ICES PA Study Group, 1997
2. Uncertainty was hidden instead of at the center
How could policy-makers could have made a decision on risk-levels?
Presentation was not transparent
“Fpa = Flim e-1.645 σ
where σ is a measure of uncertainty in the total F estimate, typically taken as 0.2-0.3”.
Source: ICES PA Study Group, 1998
Table with reference points in 1998
A choice in risk-tolerance was never presented. Precaution was scientifized
3. Boundary between science and policy remains contested
Original idea for boundary science-policy
SciencePolicy
“It is in ACFM’s mandate to make final decisions on limit reference point”
“but fisheries management agencies should be involved in
decisions on precautionary reference points”
But science could not give the answers: ongoing struggles to refine reference points
Precautionary approach is really a boundary concept: different meaning to different groups
Boundary science-policy is dynamic and needs awareness of roles
What have we learned?
1. Precautionary approach reference points are not science and were never intended to be science
2. Uncertainty was hidden instead of at the center
3. Boundary between science and policy remains contested; needs awareness
Yes, it is difficult to neatly arrange the boundary between science and policy