Paper Q9, Theme Session Q: The Language of Fisheries Science and Management

Transcription

1 Discourse in fisheries: constructing vessel monitoring systems and overfishing Peter D. Bailey and Steven Yearley Abstract This paper presents an analysis of the discourse and rhetoric used by regulators, fishers, scientists and environmentalists whilst seeking to argue for, and persuade others of, their perspective on fisheries use and management. Two fisheries issues are concentrated upon, firstly, the paper looks at how overfishing is presented by actors in the policy arena, and secondly, how the new enforcement technology of satellite-based vessel monitoring is being shaped. Fisheries discourse is shown both to delimit the possible arguments used by.actors in the fisheries policy arena but also to leave scope for actors to reinterpret the discourse so that they can attempt to be persuasive and advance their various viewpoints. The paper concludes with a discussion on how an awareness of the constraining characteristics of fisheries discourse could help in the design of new discursive opportunities in which a broader range of expertise and worldviews are incorporated into fisheries science and policy-making. Keywords Discourse analysis, fisheries management, fisheries science, precautionary approach, satellite monitoring. Peter D. Bailey: Stockholm Environment Institute at York and Department of Sociology, University of York, Heslington, York, YOlO 5DD, United Kingdom [tel: , fax: , pdb8@york.ac.uk). Steven Yearley: Department of SOCiology, University of York, Heslington, York, YOlO 5DD, United Kingdom [tel: ,fax: , sy3@york.ac.ukj Introduction: discourse in fisheries science and management In recent years, social scientists have started to investigate the discourse used by actors in the understanding, presentation and regulation of important problems for society. Example of discourse-based approaches are Jasanoff (1999) on risk, Hajer (1995) on environmental politics and Wynne (1992) on the nuclear industry. A discourse-based approach focuses upon the whole manner in which the issue of interest is framed by 'a specialised language and set of practices - in formal terms a discourse... - that serves to channel power in society' (Jasanoff, 1999:137). Such a discourse perspective argues that the way an issue is framed in technical terms and technical procedures excludes other ways of considering the issue, promotes the authority of some people as experts and reduces the legitimacy of contributions from others. Furthermore these 'frames in tum are intellectually constraining in that they delimit the universe of scientific inquiry, political discourse, and possible policy options' (Jasanoff, 1999: 140). This paper applies such a perspective to the language and procedures of fisheries science and management that constitute, what is hereon called, fisheries discourse. In the European context, the activitles and framing of fisheries science and. management are closely coupled. A straightforward example of this is the iterative process of requests and advice between the European Commission DGXIV and the 1

2 Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM) of ICES. Yet, this close coupling goes beyond the annual routine of policy requests and official scientific advice. Fisheries management and fisheries science share the same discourse of what constitutes fisheries policy and how fish in the sea should be considered. This can be clearly exemplified by looking at one aspect of fisheries discourse - the construction of a 'stock'. A fish stock is the basic unity of currency in fisheries management and scientific discourse. It pervades almost all of fisheries literature, whether it is in descriptions of TACs and quotas within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the advice of the ACFM or the Straddling and Migratory Stocks Agreement of the United Nations Law of the Sea. It is so widely used that, in a way, it disappears from view and a stock can appear to be the 'natural' way of thinking about fish. Yet, this would be to ignore the political and scientific authority that the use of stocks achieves in fisheries discourse. A fish stock has a number of characteristics in fisheries discourse. First, it is associated with a certain species in a certain area. This is necessary for it to fit With the T ACs and quotas system that is the central and most important aspect of the CFP for framing both the conservation and the distributional issues in European fisheries. Second, stocks have a number of properties that fit with the scientific method of population biology, for example they have age classes, recruitment, mortality and spawning biomass. By defining fish into stocks it is then possible to apply the quantitative methods that both constitute official fisheries science and provide the necessary numerical advice for the TACs and quotas policy. And as Finlayson (1994:69-70) revealed, the scientific methods themselves are influenced by the need to provide policy relevant advice, for example through the conceptualisation of stocks by the mass of fish rather than the number. Third, stocks with their associated scientific and political framings enable scientists and policy makers to achieve closure in both the official scientific process and the annual European policy process. Closure refers to the way in which the discourse manages to solidify and constrain the understanding, presentation and further discussion of issues within the discourse. Thus, the assessment of the quantity of fish in the sea (and thus discussions of overfishing) can authoritatively be answered using stock assessment procedures and the procedure for deciding the amount of fish allowed to be taken within the TACs and quotas system is effectively framed by the use of stocks with all their associated properties. Although fisheries discourse has been successful in achieving a high degree of scientific and policy making closure, this has not occurred by it remaining static. Indeed, the existing discourse continues to face a number of challenges to its dominance in framing fisheries science and policy: 1. The reliability of catch statistics. Estimation of past fish mortality depends upon catch statistics. However, reported catch statistics are widely acknowledged as not reflecting the full range of fish killed by fishers' activities; for example, discards and illegal landings are not reflected in many catch statistics. It has become necessary for stock assessment procedures to incorporate estimates of these parameters which are clearly dependent upon economic, regulatory and social influences. Within fisheries discourse, problems of catch statistics are framed in terms of 'uncertainties' or data 'quality'. 2. Mixed fisheries and species interactions. Another challenge -to stock assessment and fisheries management is the treatment of mixed fisheries and species interactions. 2

3 Mixed fisheries are common in many European waters where a number of different species may be caught at anyone time. Similarly, fish of commercial interest interact by one feeding on another. Both these issues are problematic for fisheries discourse as the stock assessments and the T ACs and quotas setting routines predominately have a single species formulation. In response, fisheries discourse discusses 'technical interactions' in fisheries and 'multispecies assessments'. 3. Fishers', lay and local knowledge. A number of actors in the fisheries policy arena gather knowledge of fisheries and the marine environment through their professional activities and their private interests and hobbies. The clearest example is that of fishers' knowledge. Not only do fishers provide one of the main data inputs to stock assessments - catch statistics - they also know intimately their own behaviour and... response to regulatory requirements. In addition, through their working practices, they. have direct knowledge of where fish are, what size the fish they catch are etc. Similarly, lay members of the public (such as amateur conservationists) and other professionals (such as environmental officers) may have local knowledge of such issues as the breeding performance of a sea bird colony which is dependent upon fish as its major food source. If the descriptions and prescriptions contained within fisheries discourse contradict these sources of knowledge, then distrust in fisheries science and policy making can result. Indeed, it could be argued that the technical discourse of fisheries science and management deliberately excludes other forms of knowledge and reduces the legitimacy of other contributions. Putting the discourse to work: the precautionary approach and ecosystems When discussing overfishing, many commentators refer to the Food and Agriculture Organization'S assessment of world fisheries. The FAO's assessment (FAO, 1999) uses the language of fisheries science and management, for example: 'Overall, the state of exploitation of the main fish stocks (in fisheries for which assessment information is available) has remained more or less unchanged since the early 1990s. ' Dunn, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), presents this assessment as evidence of a global crisis (Dunn, 1997). Though frequently presenting what could be characterised as an ecological perspective on fisheries and seabirds, he also situates his contribution within fisheries discourse, using such terms as spawning stock biomass and recruitment. Contributions from representatives of the fish-catching sector also have to negotiate fisheries discourse. Townsend (1998:143) of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation commented: 'There is always frustration over TACs and quotas. Of course it is not possible to completely align the views of fishermen and scientists on stock abundance. Fishermen believe the evidence of their own experience and scientists work on limited budgets and lack information and for many years have seen their recommendations manipulated by national interests. For many stocks there is no science, just mathematical calculations based on unconvincing assumptions. ' Townsend has placed his contributions within fisheries discourse, yet does so whilst promoting his own perspective and interpretations. He deconstructs fisheries science,.,.j

4 by revealing the context within which scientists operate and retains the language of 'TACs and quotas', 'calculations' and 'assumptions'. These examples illustrate how fisheries policy actors have to show a strong awareness of fisheries discourse if they are to make their own interpretations and perspectives persuasive to their audience. The precautionary approach to fisheries has been one of the major policy responses to overfishing in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, the United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and the work of the F AO' s Fisheries Department had firmly established the importance of the precautionary approach for fisheries science and management. It is an interesting case within the context of the discussion here as it illustrates (i) that fisheries discourse changes over _..time and, yet, (ii) how fisheries discourse can accommodate an issue originating from another discourse and shape it so that it fits within the existing fisheries discourse. Clearly, the precautionary approach - at least at a simple overview level - has changed fisheries discourse. For example paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Straddling Stocks Agreement (United Nations, 1995) states: '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. ' This paragraph looks like many other formulations of the precautionary principle commonly found in environmental policy discourse, stressing that lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for failing to take action to protect the environment. However, a closer reading of the precautionary approach to fisheries reveals how strongly the existing fisheries discourse has shaped its development in the fisheries context. The first observation about the precautionary approach to fisheries is the role of fisheries science in its implementation. Although the precautionary principle is usually seen as not requiring precise and complete scientific knowledge, within fisheries discourse the precautionary approach has come to be strongly defined in quantitative terms. Thus, reference and limit points are defined using parameters such as mortality and biomass, allowing the precautionary approach to be accommodated within existing practices. Indeed, the ACFM study group on the precautionary approach reinforced the suitability of existing fisheries science for applying the precautionary approach and rejected the idea that the precautionary approach implied a different style of scientific inquiry (ACFM, 1998:23): 'In such instances good scientific judgement should first be used in order to determine whether better estimation techniques are possible. Results from such exercises should be clearly documented and should never be associated with the 'precautionary approach', since the P A applies to management and not scientific estimation. ' Environmentalists have also responded to the shaping of the precautionary approach. within fisheries discourse. This is illustrated by an extract from Dunn (1998:146) of the RSPB: 'Examples of where it [the precautionary approach] should be applied are as 4

5 follows: (c) Setting an' overall TAC for the whole of the North Sea sandeel fishery is not precautionary for sensitive areas which therefore require additional localised safeguards. ' Dunn is commenting upon fisheries discourse and how it has shaped the precautionary approach. As discussed in the previous section, the classification of stocks may at first appear 'natural'. However, this statement clearly reveals that how stocks are defined in fisheries discourse is not a neutral, value-free framing of nature. In this example, Dunn suggests that the construction of a North Sea sandeel stock by fisheries discourse closes off management options that would serve more locally located, environmental interests. In environmental policy discourse, seas and oceans are not just bodies of water, they are ecosystems (for example, WCED, 1987) containing marine biological diversity (CBD, 1995). This strand of environmental discourse, with its epistemological founding in the ecological sciences and its political authority derived from the 1992 Rio agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, has been another shaping force upon fisheries discourse. Fisheries discourse now contains frequent references to marine ecosystems. Yet it is not clear that this reflects an ecosystem perspective with its strong emphasis on interconnectivity and the importance of noncommercial species. In practice, fisheries discourse simply refers to the marine ecosystem at a general level, as an over-arching unit of aggregation, whilst still presenting the fish of commercial interest in separate.stocks. Thus, although fisheries discourse has had to assimilate the 'ecosystem' into its language because of the external requirements of environmental policy interests, it has done so whilst still keeping its existing descriptions and characteristics intact. Discussing regulations: the case of Vessel Monitoring Systems When considering policy options and regulations, fisheries managers find themselves both committed to the framing provided by fisheries discourse and 'boxed-in' by it. The Vessel Monitoring System regulation (Official Journal, 1997) is one expression of this discourse frame. A feature of fisheries discourse is its reliance upon scientific and technological arguments as a source of authority. For example, such arguments underpin the TACs and quotas policy and the regulations on 'technical' conservation measures. The Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) being developed in each European Union coastal Member State will consist of satellite terminals and antennae in fishing vessels sending back position reports every few hours via satellites to a fisheries monitoring centre in each Member State. Clearly, such a technical control regulation sits comfortably with the technical expertise and language of fisheries management. A second characteristic of fisheries discourse is the issue of fishers as rule-breakers. Rule breaking by fishers is typically explained in fisheries discourse as resulting from the 'nature of fishermen' (Cann, 1998:26) who are individualistic, tough and face significant occupational risks. The Vessel Monitoring System is consistent with this discourse as it is founded on the presumption that fishers break the rules and need 'monitoring'. Thirdly, VMS has been shaped by another theme in European fisheries discourse, that of harmonisation. This theme is found in many policy areas of the 5

6 European Union. European fisheries policy always has to negotiate its way around the tension between the harmonisation of rules (for example, as found in the equal access principle of the CFP) and the individual interests and rights of Member States (for example, in the relative stability principle and in the enforcement of regulations). The satellite monitoring of fishing vessels with its unified requirements on Member States and its aim of promoting uniform levels of rule enforcement has been shaped by the harmonisation theme of European fisheries discourse, as illustrated by this extract from a Commission report (European Commission, 1996:21): 'From the Community perspective, a satellite based vessel monitoring system will improve the uniform application of the regulatory framework, enhance co-operation between enforcement agencies and ensure greater transparency of the fishery control and enforcement effort in the Member States. ' Concluding discussion Fisheries discourse - the technical language and set of practices of fisheries science and management - shapes how policy actors conceptualise the sea, fish, the activities of fishers and fisheries policies; at the same time, the discourse reduces the possibility for considering fisheries issues in other ways. Through fisheries discourse, the institutions of fisheries science, management and policy-making predispose particular causal implications, promote the authority of certain types of expertise and steer the fisheries policy arena towards certain positions. This has been explored in this paper through a number of examples: how by grouping fish into stocks, scientific assessment and quota management of stocks is facilitated but more environmentally based management options are excluded; how the precautionary approach to fisheries has been implemented in a way that allows existing scientific practices to continue; the manner in which the word ecosystem has been incorporated into the language of fisheries whilst retaining the previous emphasis upon individual commercial fish species; and, the way the satellite-based system of vessel monitoring reinforces regulators as technical experts and fishers as rule breakers, and attempts to harmonise the enforcement activities of EU Member States. From time to time, fisheries discourse has to accommodate external influences. Many of these originate from environmental policy discourse and have some form of political legitimacy (often derived from international governmental agreements) so cannot be ignored. Typically, the response has been to assimilate these external influences into the language of fisheries discourse without fundamentally changing the overall language or practices of the discourse. Thus fisheries policy actors interpret external issues within the context of the existing discourse by, for example, getting an advisory group to incorporate the issue into its predetermined analytical procedures. So, should present fisheries discourse be less constrained? Can it be 'opened-up' and participation encouraged from those with alternative expertise and worldviews? To an extent this is beginning to happen, although in a patchy and incomplete manner. For example, environmental groups are interpreting the vessel monitoring regulation as an opportunity to introduce and enforce areas closed to fishing (MCS, 1998:34) - one group even suggesting that '5%' of the North Sea could be permanently closed (WWF, 1997: 18). The Commission is proposing closer dialogue With the fisheries sector and other actors in the fisheries policy arena, including consumer and 6

7 environmental NGOs, through reform of its Advisory Committee on Fisheries (Bonino, 1999). Yet, the proposal to support the plenary committee with technical working groups suggests that the new dialogue may still be constrained by the existing discursive frame. Much will depend on what types of expertise and interests are thought to be relevant by the Commission and who is included in the working groups and plenary committee. For example, will fishers be seen purely as economic agents or will they also be involved as a source of fisheries knowledge to complement scientific expertise? Will ecological assessments complement existing stock assessments? An awareness of the constraining characteristics of the present discourse in fisheries. could help in the design of new discursive opportunities, like the one proposed by the Commission. Indeed, unless fisheries managers, scientists and elected policy-makers recognise how their existing technical language and technical procedures delimit their own and other peoples' contributions to the fisheries policy arena, it is unlikely that improved dialogue - including a broader range of expertise and worldviews - will be effectively incorporated into future fisheries policy. References ACFM, Report of the Study Group on the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries Management. [1998/ACFM:I0] Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Bonino, E Towards closer dialogue. EI Anzuelo: European Newsletter on Fisheries and the Environment. Institute of European Environmental Policy, London. Cann, C The politics of fishing: a fisheries manager's point of view. In, The Politics of Fishing, Tim S. Gray (ed.). Macmilliam Press, London. CBD, Jakarta Mandate, Sustainable Use of Living Marine and Coastal Resources. Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP. Dunn, E Sustainable fisheries and seabirds. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. RSPB Conservation Review 11 : Dunn, E The case for greater environmental safeguards in the revision of the Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Environmental Management Review of 1997 and Future Trends, Volume 5, Paper 20: European Commission, Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Establishment of a Satellite-based Vessel Monitoring System for Community Fishing Vessels. COM (96)232 Final. Commision of the European Communities, Brussels. FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture UN Food and Agriculture Organization. _ O. 7

8 Finlayson, A.c Fishing for Truth: A Sociological Analysis of Northern Cod Stock Assessment from Social and Economic Studies No.52. Institute of Social and Economic Research. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's. Hajer, M.A The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jasanoff, S The Songlines of Risk. Environmental Values 8: MCS, No Take Zones (NTZs): A Realistic Tool for Fisheries Management? Bernadette M. Clarke (ed.). Marine Conservation Society. Ross on Wye. Official JournaL Council Regulation (EC) No 686/97. Official Journal of the European Communities No L 102/1-3. Townsend, M The fishermen's frustration over the failure of the Common Fisheries Policy to meet their needs. Marine Environmental Management Review of 1997 and Future Trends, Volume 5, Paper 20: United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. United Nations, New York. WCED, Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. WWF, Recovery Plans for the North Sea Ecosystem, with Special Reference to Cod, Haddock and Plaice. World Wide Fund For Nature. WWF-UK, Godalming. Wynne, B Risk and social learning: reification of engagement. In, Social Theories of Risk. Sheldon Krimsky and Dominic Golding (ed.). Praeger, Wetsport, Connecticut. Acknowledgements This paper is based upon work done as part of a project within the Human Dimensions of Environmental Change programme of Framework IV, funded by the European Commission DGXII. We would like to thank the Commission and our project partners for their contributions to the project and their support. 8