Bridging the gap between science, stakeholders and policy makers <br/>Phase 2:Integration of evidence-based knowledge and its application to science and management of fisheries and the marine environment

Final Report Summary - GAP2 (Bridging the gap between science, stakeholders and policy makers <br/>Phase 2:Integration of evidence-based knowledge and its application to science and management of fisheries and the marine environment)

Executive Summary:
Stakeholders may frequently challenge the validity or interpretation of scientific advice because of the negative impact policy decisions arising from it can have on their lives. This ‘tension’ between society, policy and science is plainly evident when environmental sustainability concerns appear in conflict with maintaining livelihoods. As an example of this phenomenon, GAP2 used active participation and knowledge sharing between scientists, stakeholders and policy makers as a way to reduce tension and build relationships that will yield long-term benefits to the sustainability of European fisheries. The premise for this approach is based on the understanding that: (1) The evidence-base for management improves if knowledge of fishers and their experience is integrated in a meaningful way with scientific and policy knowledge. (2) If knowledge is shared and co- constructed it improves the implementation and effectiveness of management measures and (3) If knowledge is shared and co- constructed it improves the support for policy and societal goals to achieve responsible, sustainable, productive fisheries.
Since 2012, 38 partner institutions from 11 European countries have been engaged in mutual ‘learning by doing’. The work centred around 13 case studies, where fishers, scientists and sometimes policy makers, have worked together on a diverse range of research issues aimed at solving problems of shared interest in fisheries management and science; From monitoring coastal cod populations in Norway, assessing crab stocks in the SW UK, defining spatial marine plans in Estonia, modelling multispecies mixed fisheries in the North Sea, to confronting head-on the realities of a ‘discard ban’ in the Netherlands, GAP2 has sought to facilitate and integrate fishermen’s and other stakeholders knowledge in to the scientific and management arenas which make decisions that affect them.
The inclusive approach has reaped many rewards, documented throughout this report. One particularly successful example is GAP2’s red shrimp case study in Palamós, Spain, where collaboration between local fishers, scientists and the regional Government of Catalonia has produced a co-management plan approved by the Federal government and now used as a role model for fisheries along the Mediterranean coast.
The wealth of new knowledge and data produced by the case studies has been complemented by the contributions to learning about participatory science and good governance of fisheries. Social scientists have continually analysed the building and developing of relationships between those involved in the work. Observing the case-studies as ‘experiments’ in the transition to a more inclusive ecosystem-based approach to management, they have also revealed the challenges and benefits of the participatory approach.
Throughout its course, the project has aligned itself with the emerging issues of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). A range of inclusive participatory events on important, timely issues has been held. Two pivotal workshops during CFP reform provided the first opportunities for policy makers, industry, managers and scientists to come together and discuss the theme ‘Putting the Science into Regionalisation’. Other pioneering workshops include: a fisher-focused interactive workshop on collaborative management of octopus fisheries in Northern Spain, UK-French collaboration on the Channel scallop fishery, multi-stakeholder workshops on Irish Sea herring management plans, and Spanish and French collaboration on sustainable FAD fishing for tuna in the Indian Ocean.
A re-occurring theme in GAP2’s work has been the importance of establishing trust and developing the ‘common language’ to work effectively together. It not surprising then that good communication at all levels has been central to our work. We have used a range of tools and approaches to reach different audiences, making our work transparent, visible and accessible to everyone. It can all be found at www.gap2.eu.

Project Context and Objectives:
1.1 Rationale

The interplay between policy makers, experts, stakeholders and the public at large is an increasingly crucial part of policy making for which the process is as important as the outcome.

Stakeholders may frequently challenge the validity or interpretation of scientific advice because of the negative impact policy decisions arising from it can have on their lives. This ‘tension’ between society, policy and science is plainly evident when environmental sustainability concerns appear in conflict with maintaining livelihoods. As an example of this phenomenon, GAP2 used active participation and knowledge sharing between scientists, stakeholders and policy makers as a way to reduce tension and build relationships that will yield long-term benefits to resource management.

GAP2 has been about making a difference to an issue of significance to the whole of society; the wellbeing of the marine environment and the sustainability of fisheries upon which society depends for food. It has been driven by the belief that “it’s not only what you do that makes a difference, it’s how you go about it”. Building on the relationships, processes and plans arising from GAP1, the project has enabled Mobilisation and Mutual Learning (MML) actions that promote stakeholder participation in the debate on and development of research knowledge and structures relevant to policy on fisheries and the marine environment.
A broad range of stakeholders participated from the beginning, including actors from civil society organisations, research institutions, universities, national and regional ministries and media organisations. Their work has involved participatory research actions designed integrate the knowledge of stakeholders and scientists and render it useful for policy implementation, critical evaluation of the participatory processes and incorporation of the lessons learned into systems of research and decision making. Project partners and other external participants have helped forge and strengthen trans- and international learning on the role and value of Public Engagement in Responsible Research and Innovation.

1.2 Aims and objectives

Aims

To promote and enable processes for open and effective participation of stakeholders in research and management, and demonstrate through specific examples and critical evaluation, the role and value of stakeholder driven science in the governance of fisheries and the marine environment.

Objectives & their Tasks

The work plan is guided by 6 objectives that contribute knowledge and debate on issues of importance to Science in Society:

Objective 1. Promote and enhance stakeholder involvement in research and governance of fisheries and the marine environment, by improving engagement of research organisations, stakeholders and policy makers.

1.1 Strengthen multi-stakeholder engagement mechanisms towards fully embedding applied scientific knowledge into the sustainable management and governance of European fisheries and the marine environment.
1.2 Promote and maintain the structure and processes to enable active participation and mutual learning of stakeholders within and beyond the GAP2 consortium.
1.3 Compare best practice on stakeholder participation in research and management of natural resources through trans and international exchange. Evaluate and integrate the lessons relevant to European research and policy.

Objective 2. Enable meaningful two-way interaction between scientists and fisheries stakeholders, by working together on research of common interest, engaging in shared learning activities and by integrating knowledge in ways useful to management.

2.1 Facilitate and maintain effective dialogue and mutual learning.
2.2 Capture and integrate stakeholder and scientific knowledge.
2.3 Make the research outcomes accessible and promote their uptake.
2.4 Coordinate and monitor progress and achievements of the case study portfolio.

Objective 3. Establish and demonstrate concepts and mechanisms that enable uptake of participatory research knowledge and promote application of stakeholder know-how to European policies on fisheries and the marine environment.

3.1 Analysis of the use of shared concepts in transferring the knowledge required for evidence-based policy making.
3.2 Develop and apply concepts and mechanisms that effectively bridge the gap between different actor groups.
3.3 Engage policy makers, stakeholders and scientists in formulating expectations for research needs and contributing to the establishment of mechanisms for the uptake of participatory research outcomes consistent with the needs of the CFP, MSFD and Natura 2000.

Objective 4. Evaluate, whether, when and how collaborative research makes a difference to empirical knowledge and to management.

4.1 Examine the overall institutional framework for each participatory research case study.
4.2 Establish how participants’ attitudes change through collaborative research.
4.3 Examine the fit between collaborative research and management decision making.
4.4 Examine the dynamics of the interaction between management requirements and stakeholders.

Objective 5. Promote the engagement of society with science and vice versa, by enabling effective communication and outreach actions. Ensure that the principles of transparency and openness, together with scientific quality and credibility are adequately addressed in communications.

5.1 Develop the outreach strategy, manage its implementation and monitor and evaluate its effectiveness and impact.
5.2 Deliver timely and effective communication of the concept, plans and outcomes of GAP2 targeted at the Reference User Group.
5.3 Communicate the outcomes of interest internationally via the Civil Society Group.
5.4 Coordinate an international symposium, aimed at identifying and describing means to overcome possible barriers to the participation of society and its organizations in research and management of the marine environment.

Objective 6. Ensure effective implementation and delivery of the GAP2 MMLAP according to the description of work and consortium agreement. Monitor, evaluate and report on progress and impacts.

6.1 Co-ordinate and manage implementation and delivery of GAP2.
6.2 Monitor and evaluate the process and impact of GAP2.
6.3 Management of the legal, contractual, financial aspects of the consortium.

To enable the consortium to successfully meet the aims and objectives, a straightforward work plan that mapped aims and objectives to work packages and their associated deliverables was implemented.

Project Results:
Each work package and its associated tasks and deliverables were deliberately aligned with objectives, such that the complement of activities all worked to fulfil the project’s aim. This section summarises the main results and outcomes in relation to the project’s objectives, and refers readers to specific deliverables for in-depth material.
2.1 Objective 1: Promote and enhance stakeholder involvement in research and governance of fisheries and the marine environment, by improving engagement of research organisations, stakeholders and policy makers.

• Task 1.1: Strengthen multi-stakeholder engagement mechanisms towards fully embedding applied scientific knowledge into the sustainable management and governance of European fisheries and the marine environment.

Working closely with CEFAS, WWF UK coordinated efforts to engage with all of the Regional Advisory Councils (now ‘Advisory Councils’, or ‘ACs’). GAP2 successfully engaged with six of the seven ACs and collaborated with them in delivering specific workshops connected with existing case-studies or addressing newly identified areas of need. The task promoted information sharing and flow, and played an important role in supporting the ACs thinking about Regionalisation of the CFP and served establish and build the first steps towards the development of long-term management plans (LTMPs) in two key fisheries: mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, and the Channel scallop fishery. (See Deliverable 1.1.1 and Deliverable 1.1.2 ).

• Task 1.2: Promote and maintain the structure and processes to enable active participation and mutual learning of stakeholders within and beyond the GAP2 consortium.

The outcomes and products of the efforts on this task are varied and numerous. They contribute to the successful delivery of the overall project aims and delivery of other tasks. In particular, efforts focussed principally upon on activities that sought to promote uptake of GAP2s outcomes and try and embed them in the structure and processes, for example:
(i) Promoting active engagement as a mode of responsible research inside and outside the consortium. With an ever growing reach, the positive outcomes from GAP2 have created opportunities for a network of interactions to flourish. Inside the consortium, we welcomed new faces and helped facilitate and encourage new ideas that build on the track record established by others. Outside the consortium we built alliances with other similar research activities (e.g. Sharkbywatch, Fishing People, GEPETO, DAMARA, Myfish project). A key outcome of these new relationships was the preparation and submission of a H2020 proposal aimed at establishing a specific network. Unfortunately the proposal was not successful at this time.

Through demonstration and promotion of the project results, such as at the International symposium in February 2015, the GAP2 project is being reinforced by an ever growing diverse network of like-minded actors. One example of the fruits of our sustained efforts in this area was confirmation of the establishment of Fishing into the future as a charitable organisation. Dr Mackinson continues to serve as the Chair of the Science and Data Committee.

(ii) Working toward a deeper and more systematic engagement of stakeholders in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. On 4-5th November 2013, for the first time in ICES, representatives from 5 Regional Advisory Councils attended the ICES Working Group on Maritime Systems and discussed ways to strengthen the engagement between scientists and stakeholders across the ICES regions. Detailed reports can be found at the following links; ICES WGMARS (report) and ICES-MIRAC meeting (report).

(iii) Understanding the policy framework within which opportunities exist to facilitate a structured and sustained involvement of stakeholders in fisheries governance. Continuous and varied efforts are necessary to get good engagement of policy makers, and this is something we have worked hard to achieve through planning of directed meetings, making the most of existing opportunities and forging closer relationships with individual policy makers through our institutional links. One example is the third annual workshop where we deliberately planned to coincide with a policy-focus day at the MARE conference (24th-28th June 2014). The coordinator gave a presentation at the policy day event entitled “Seeing is believing - New forms of knowledge for small-scale fisheries – some lessons from case studies around Europe”.

Another example is planning the GAP2 Dialogue meeting (26th February 2014), the coordinator and Martin Pastoors (WUR) held a specific meeting with DGMARE (8th November 2013) to understand their needs in our preparations for the meeting. The learning from this provided the basis for our first Policy Brief (Policy Brief 1) and resulted in very well attended and successful meeting. A workshop report was completed and formed the basis of the 2nd Policy Brief.

(iv) Contributing to Science with and for Society debate and promoting the GAP2 MML actions as models of Responsible Research and Innovation. Steve Mackinson and other partners have been involved in various cross-programme activities and events that have helped establish and promote awareness about the aims and objectives of GAP2 and demonstrating that participatory actions in research and management are synonymous with Responsible Research and Innovation. For example, at the “Shaping public engagement in Horizon 2020” event (6-7th November 2013), coordinators of Science in Society projects shared experiences and identified needs and strategies for helping embed Public Engagement actions in Horizon 2020. Other contributions where GAP2’s participatory actions have served as a role model for multi-actor engagement include the European Science Open Forum event on public engagement (26th June 2014) and the SIS-RRI Science, Innovation and Society: achieving Responsible Research and Innovation, Rome November 19th-21st 2014.

As coordinator, Cefas received numerous requests to participate in surveys (FP7 related and from students) to unlock the potential of projects like GAP2. We have actively contributed to these and also provide advice to others following similar thinking. (e.g. we are on the advisory steering group of the PIER project).

• Task 1.3: Compare best practice on stakeholder participation in research and management of natural resources through trans and international exchange. Evaluate and integrate the lessons relevant to European research and policy.

To provide the opportunity to learn from best practice examples of stakeholder participation outside of the GAP2 consortium, the project ran a wide-ranging international exchange programme. Groups of fishers, scientists, NGO staff and policy makers - in varying combinations – were able to apply for funding to visit fisheries elsewhere in the world from which they felt they could learn applicable lessons for their own work or research. The aim was to gain new perspectives and understanding, mainly through exchanges with other, well-functioning participatory research projects, but also through exchanges within the project. Other important aspects of this task were to facilitate the development of individuals, and to provide a learning opportunity that would hopefully serve as inspiration for the project as a whole.
In total, around 20 applications were submitted and reviewed by an expert panel. Of these, eleven exchange activities were approved and completed (see Deliverable 1.3). These eleven exchanges involved over 120 different people. The completed exchange activities covered a diverse range of themes. The most common themes were related to participatory research processes and fisheries governance. Several exchange activities also dealt with exploration of innovations solving urgent problems within fisheries and conservation of marine biodiversity.
Four of the exchange activities involved contact with North American organisations, two activities involved host organisations in Australia/New Zealand, and the rest of the activities were related to exchanges within Europe. The exchange programme has strengthened the contacts with several important persons/organisations that are involved in similar attempts to facilitate participatory research in fisheries. It also strengthened the interactions within the GAP2 consortium by allowing more personal meetings between participants. Further, there has been an extensive number of communications activities highlighting the exchange activities (over 60 different blog posts and a number of video documentaries). This not only served to channel results from the exchanges specifically, but also helped raise awareness of the project as a whole.
The overall conclusion from these exchange experiences was that there is much common ground to be found internationally when discussing and working on the theme of participatory research. It was concluded that, from experiences gained internationally and within the project, some of the most critical areas that require attention to be able to develop and implement participatory research practices are:
1) Education of scientists, students and fishers is important to help enhance participatory research in fisheries.
2) Allowing local fishers to be involved, and given responsibilities in the assessment of their stocks and habitats may contribute towards a better long-term climate for participatory research.
3) Fitting participatory research to its purposes, making it cost efficient and management orientated.
4) The time it takes to build trust amongst collaborating stakeholders is important and will make it easier to reach success.

2.2 Objective 2: Enable meaningful two-way interaction between scientists and fisheries stakeholders, by working together on research of common interest, engaging in shared learning activities and by integrating knowledge in ways useful to management.

This objective focussed on implementing participatory research actions, monitoring and reporting their progress and results. A key output encapsulating the delivery of all of these tasks was the ‘case study summary’ documents. These visually engaging, to-the-point summaries highlight the structure.
• Task 2.1: Facilitate and maintain effective dialogue and mutual learning.
In addition to the ongoing demonstration actions in each case study and the influencing actions associated with Objective 1, a focus was given to the evaluation of approaches and outcomes of specific mutual learning events carried out across the project (see Deliverable 2.1). Conclusions underlined the importance of the negotiating process in establishing the parameters and methods of research, and reaching a consensus on research conclusions. Successful mutual learning was found to be that which focuses not only on the collaborative gathering of data, but also on stakeholders’ different and often contradictory interests.

• Task 2.2: Capture and integrate stakeholder and scientific knowledge.

Several workshops (Deliverable 2.2.1 and Deliverable 2.2.2) among partners helped generate information to develop the project’s ‘Methodological Toolbox’, and establish a common understanding of key concepts such as ‘Participatory Leadership’ - ‘a more advanced, more democratic and more effective model of leadership, it harnesses diversity, builds community, and creates shared responsibility for action. It deepens individual and collective learning yielding real development and growth’. These were important in in the development of a range guidance documents and policy briefings.
“Methodological toolbox – implementation process”.
Supporting both the capture and dissemination of scientific and stakeholder knowledge, the methodological toolbox (Deliverable 2.2.3) is an important resource for others. Available as a paper document and an interactive web-based platform, the toolbox was produced based on knowledge gathered in workshops and during the practical application of participatory research methods during the project’s lifespan. It acts as guide for those interested in carrying out participatory research. It’s also a live-document where new tools can be added.
Crucially, the toolbox has been completed in a way which is easy to interact with, and easily digestible by a range of audiences, supporting the overall objective of creating meaningful interaction between science and stakeholders, and producing management-friendly research outputs. The toolbox is as relevant to a policy audience as to a researcher, and is based on methods tried and tested by and with groups of fishers across Europe.

• Task 2.3: Make the research outcomes accessible and promote their uptake.

With the aim of making research outcomes from GAP2 accessible to a wider audience, a submission was made to ‘Springer’ publishers, for a special volume focusing on the emergence of research practices and advice frameworks that allow for the co-creation of common knowledge bases for fisheries management (Deliverable 2.3.1). Centred around the 13 GAP2 participatory research case studies, the submission details how each chapter examines how the collaborative processes worked over the lifetime of each individual case study, and the volume as a whole examines overarching lessons learnt about the task of integrating collective research into management decisions.
Throughout the project, considerable effort was made to ensure the accessibility of research outcomes to a variety of audiences. One particular example is the ‘Participatory Research Handbook’, a ‘good practice guide’ to enacting collaborative research methods, and building relationships across different groups within research processes.
Alongside the provision of guidance for researchers and others interested in participatory research, the work of the GAP2 case studies was also shared with a wide audience, across Europe, through non-scientific publications, or media coverage. Several of the case studies have appeared on television, and all have appeared in regional and national print/online media. This has been a key way in which civil society has engaged with the project, and a real boost to the profile of participatory research. (See Deliverable 2.3.2).
2.3 Objective 3: Establish and demonstrate concepts and mechanisms that enable uptake of participatory research knowledge and promote application of stakeholder know-how to European policies on fisheries and the marine environment.

• Task 3.1: Analysis of the use of shared concepts in transferring the knowledge required for evidence-based policy making.

Analysing published and non-published materials from the project’s participatory research activities helped to establish the concepts and mechanisms allowing the uptake of co-produced knowledge in science-stakeholder research partnerships (Deliverable 3.1.1). This analysis concluded that participation has become incorporated into EU policies – including the CFP – as an acknowledged element of good governance. It also showed that involving stakeholders in participatory research can be a way of expanding the knowledge base supporting EU fisheries management.

The paper concludes that participatory research can be difficult to do well, and especially challenging within contexts where fisheries management problems are being addressed. It clearly highlights the care that needs to be applied to the design of the research process.

Focusing on an initiative led by the North Sea Advisory Council (NSAC) to develop a long-term management plan (LTMP) for nephrops fisheries in the North Sea (a process which started in 2006, and still on-going), the mobilisation of different types of knowledge in interactions between stakeholders, scientists and policy makers was investigated in detail (Deliverable 3.1.2). The sharing of knowledge between different actors was analysed using insights from organisational management, focusing on boundary processes and the kinds of resources and efforts that are needed at different boundaries to allow knowledge sharing and knowledge production to take place.

Conducted at a time of rapidly emerging new policy framework for the CFP, the analysis revealed the difficulties of producing a management instrument which can be flexible enough to takes into account biological, ecological, economic and social aspects of management. An important aspect of achieving that flexibility lies in the need transform the knowledge base and the way it is accessed and applied.

• Task 3.2: Develop and apply concepts and mechanisms that effectively bridge the gap between different actor groups.

A number of policy briefs were produced across the lifespan of the project. The short format style of these briefings provides easy-to-digest relevant information to policy makers. Their purpose is to provoke thought, and stimulate debate on topical issues relating to deepening the engagement of stakeholders in governance of EU fisheries. The first two policy briefs focussed on the knowledge needs, and their application, in the regionalised approach to fisheries management adopted under the 2014 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (Deliverable 3.2.1).

Conducted as part of one of the GAP2 PhD’s a specific analysis of the collaborations by Irish and Danish industry stakeholders and scientists in filling knowledge gaps in the rapidly expanding Boarfish fishery, provided an in-depth examination of how stakeholder participation can help improve the knowledge base for assessment and management of data poor fisheries (Deliverable 3.2.2). It was found that the efficiency with which new knowledge was mobilised and brought forward to the scientific community and to managers in the setting analysed, was remarkable. It was considered that the efficiency observed might be explained by the clear separation of roles within the collaboration work, in combination with good communication. Each actor in the process contributed by doing tasks they were already good at, and keeping other updated on their progress. The fact that a small number of fishers were involved with the boarfish fishery facilitated direct dialogue with stakeholders and their producer organisations (POs). This helped build common understanding, which again helped the stakeholders move forward with joined forces.

Another PhD paper looked in detail at the processes involved in stakeholder-led initiatives to make long-term management plans for Western horse mackerel, boarfish, and North-sea nephrops, showing how LTMPs provide the entry point for enagaging stakeholders participation in EU fisheries management (Deliverable 3.3.2).

• Task 3.3: Engage policy makers, stakeholders and scientists in formulating expectations for research needs and contributing to the establishment of mechanisms for the uptake of participatory research outcomes consistent with the needs of the CFP, MSFD and Natura 2000.

Three further briefs targeted at the policy-making audience were delivered in the final year of the project (Deliverable 3.3.1). Delivering easy-to-digest information on complex topics, these were circulated to as many EU policy makers as possible, in digital and print format.

- Policy brief 3 provides a two-page breakdown on the production, use and value of GAP2’s ‘Methodological Toolbox’, underling the use of participatory research in reducing tensions between different stakeholders, leading to productive working relationships, and inspiring innovation in research and management. The brief includes background information on what participatory research is as well as how it is conducted, and links to the interactive web-based platform for the toolbox.

- Policy brief 4, covering the GAP2 International Symposium, contains summaries of sessions that took place throughout the 3-day event, which focussed on ‘participatory research and co-management in fisheries’.

- Policy brief 5 outlines key outcomes that have come about due to long-term collaboration between fishers and scientists, explaining the overall philosophy of the GAP2 project, and listing important milestones and physical outputs of the project’s work in Europe.

2.4 Objective 4: To evaluate, whether, when and how collaborative research makes a difference to empirical knowledge and to management.

• Task 4.1: Examine the overall institutional framework for each participatory research case study.
Centred around knowledge, social process and the success of participatory research, this work involved evaluating ‘whether, when and how collaborative research makes a difference to empirical knowledge and to management’. As a first step, an evaluation of the institutional framework of participatory research was undertaken in order to try and understand the institutional conditions that shape participatory research designs and influence how knowledge can be mobilised for management purposes in different contexts (Deliverable 4.1).
The method for examining these institutional frameworks included three steps. Firstly a framework was established for classifying different approaches to, and dimensions of, participatory research. This framework consists of an assessment of the different levels of stakeholder engagement in research projects, and distinguishing between situations according to how the projects or activities in question are related to management decision-making. Together, these two dimensions – depth of participation and degree of separation between research and management - allowed a matrix or map to be established, by which different types of collaborative research projects or activities could be characterized and compared. A literature review was also conducted in order to develop and refine this analytical framework. This refined analytical framework was then used to discuss six of the individual case studies within GAP2.
It was determined that the most interesting aspect of this assessment process was not, in fact, the result, but rather was the attempt to identify the main objective of the project, how it got to be that way, and the role of stakeholder engagement in the process.

• Task 4.2: Establish how participants’ attitudes change through collaborative research.
Research was conducted into the attitudes of scientists, fishers and policy makers undertaking collaborative research (Deliverable 4.2.1). A comparison was made between these groups of people in six different GAP2 case studies, with particular emphasis on their views of stakeholder participation, collaborative research and the relationship between Experience Based Knowledge (EBK) and Research Based Knowledge (RBK) in the area of fisheries management.
Following the sorting of statements by strength of agreement with their content, work package four assessed the results as showing that the gap between stakeholders and scientists was less ‘deep and dark’ than conventionally described. It was found that in general GAP2 participants had a more developed cooperative attitude than non-GAP2 participants, but that the contrast between these groups was not as great as anticipated.
A number of explanations for this were considered, including that the broad acceptance of the gap itself had contributed a first step towards its bridging. It was also considered possible that the many initiatives and institutions – including GAP2 case studies – enabling stakeholder participation over the last 10 years are already starting to have an effect on the industry, and others, in general.
A second analysis of attitudes was submitted 12 months after this initial assessment, to examine if and how perceptions of (the value of) collaborative research were changed throughout the research process (Deliverable 4.2.2). It revealed that the project’s initial academic conceptualization of fisher knowledge, how it interacted with science, and how collaborative research worked was in some ways unhelpful and in need of revision.
It showed that collaborative research is not so much about bridging the gap by providing a melting pot in which fishers knowledge is combined with scientific knowledge, but rather to engage fishers as active agents in the knowledge-production process; something which partners have been actively doing in their activities. In collaborative research, then, the focus shifts from fishers’ knowledge items towards the role and capacity of fishers as knowledge agents. In this sense, GAP2 case studies can then be seen as allowing fishers access to the resources of science for their own purposes, rather than working as arenas for negotiating knowledge gaps and dismantling preconceptions.
• Task 4.3: Examine the fit between collaborative research and management decision making and Task 4.4: Examine the dynamics of the interaction between management requirements and stakeholders.

Using scientific papers written on the process of each of the 13 GAP2 case studies, and in-depth interviews with the case study leaders, an analysis of the impact of participatory research on three variables: saliency, legitimacy and credibility, was completed (Deliverable 4.3.1). These terms were defined as follows:
• Saliency reflects whether an actor perceived the assessment to be addressing questions relevant to their policy or behavioural choices.
• Credibility reflects whether an actor perceives the assessment’s arguments to meet standards of scientific plausibility or technical adequacy.
• Legitimacy reflects whether an actor perceives the assessment as unbiased and meeting standards of political fairness.

It is considered that these three factors are strong influencers in whether or not research will successfully be taken up by management.
The analysis showed that whilst not all case studies were successful in terms of the initial goals set, there were positive steps towards changing the credibility, legitimacy and/or saliency of the results produced and the perceptions of the different stakeholders against each other.
Through a second analysis of scientific papers produced on the process of each of the GAP2 case studies, and in-depth interviews with case study leaders, an assessment of the use (or potential use) of the data produced by these collaborative research case studies in management was conducted (Deliverable 4.3.2). The information was analysed with a focus on whether or not the knowledge product (data) was used in management, and why. The results suggested some of the case studies were successful in directly influencing management. It was concluded that this depended on the flexibility of the management system in question, the reliability of the data, the involvement of the management side, and sometimes even the persistence with which the case study teams engaged with policy makers.

Potential Impact:

3.1 Impacts – on different audiences / end users
The inclusive approach has reaped many rewards, with the outcomes of our work coming in different forms relevant to different people, at different organisational levels. In addition to the case-specific concrete outcomes relevant to local and regional fisheries stakeholder and management authorities (e.g. see List 1 below), GAP2 has played an important role in facilitating multi-actor debate on fisheries policy development and implementation among EU member state governments, the Commission, Parliament and Regional Advisory Councils (comprising industry and NGO stakeholders). A particular issue where GAP2 has had an impact is the establishment of the dialogue the roles and structures for implementing Regionalisation of the CFP (e.g. Policy Brief 2). Other issues where GAP2 has been a catalyst and support include: collaborative development of management plans for octopus fisheries in Northern Spain, UK-French collaboration on the Channel scallop fishery, multi-stakeholder workshops on Irish Sea herring management plans, and Spanish and French collaboration on sustainable FAD fishing for tuna in the Indian Ocean.
List 1 Specific concrete outcomes
1. A long-term management plan for the red shrimp fishery in Palamós, Spain, endorsed by the regional and national Governments and an exemplar in the Mediterranean. Read more.
2. Facilitated a set of stock management rules for western Baltic Herring, mutually agreed by member states, Norway, the Pelagic and Baltic RAC. Read more.
3. Proposed, through a process of co-management, the adoption of new technical measure regulations (pop-up traps) for selective fishing on whitefish in Lake Vättern. Read more.
4. Developed an ecosystem modelling tool used by STECF to evaluate options for a North Sea multiannual plan, taking account of mixed fisheries and the landing obligation. Read more.
5. Contributed towards the revision of a summer trawl-fishing ban in the Adriatic Sea, as a result of providing GAP2 data to FAO Adriamed, and the GFCM. Read more.
6. New data on the distribution of IUCN Red List species around German coast, and the establishment of the ‘Sustain Seafood’ consortium. Read more.
7. Facilitated development of a strategic plan for FAD management in Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. Read more.

The wealth of new knowledge and data produced by the case studies has been complemented by the contributions to learning about participatory science and good governance of fisheries (List 2). As experiments in the transition to more inclusive ecosystem-based management, the case-studies have revealed the challenges and benefits of the participatory approach. This learning has been made accessible to researchers around the world, through publication of critical evaluations of the learning process, training courses and the provision of a toolbox for Responsible Research and Innovation (Methodological Toolbox and PR handbook).
List 2 – Sharing lessons on how to do it
1. Developed practical advice on how to do participatory research effectively, based on in-depth experience from examples around Europe. Read more.
2. Provided participatory researchers tools for the job. Read more.
3. Delivered courses for natural scientists to learn about social science methods in participatory research. Read more.
4. Highlighted collaborative research methods as a pathway to co-management. Read more.
5. Demonstrated how exchanging experiences can help to develop new ideas and strategies on how to make collaboration effective and useful to fishers, scientists and policy makers. Read more.
Showed how establishing a common language enables actors to share knowledge and build common ground. Read more.
A re-occurring theme of GAP2 has been the importance of establishing trust and developing the ‘common language’ to work effectively together. It’s not surprising then that good communication at all levels has been central to our work. We have used a range of tools and approaches to reach different audiences, making our work transparent, visible and accessible to everyone. Tailoring communications to different audiences has been key to the project’s success and visibility, both with the marine stakeholder community and the interested public. GAP2’s social media activities have made it the go-to source for relevant and engaging content, with a storyline focussed on active participation in research and management. It can all be found at www.gap2.eu.
3.2 Future potential

Building successful participatory approaches is a necessity of good governance that requires the will and support from all actors: fishers, scientists, civil society (NGOs) and policy makers throughout Europe.

Releasing the value of the experience gained during GAP2 requires making local scale outcomes relevant and useful to regional and European level decision-making. It also requires evolving the institutional processes and structures that enable co-created knowledge to be applied and made useful. Rather than standing on the outside and trying to enact change externally, we have worked on cementing change from within by connecting outcomes with the institutional processes and structures that legitimise and enable them. Specifically, we have sought to connect the project outcomes with the institutional structures and delivery of the principal EU-wide Marine Research Performing Organisations: the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, and the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean. (see List 3).
List 3 – Cementing change - connecting outcomes with the institutional processes and structures that legitimise and enable them. Examples from GAP2.
1. Established and sustained ToRs for Stakeholder and Scientist collaboration in ICES scientific working groups. Read more.
2. Tuna – ISSF across the world hold’s participatory approach GAP2-type meetings for skippers to discuss best selective fishing practices. Read more.
3. Channel Scallop – English and French fishermen agree to work towards joint, regional management plan for this economically important fishery. Read more.
4. Influenced European and regional research funding programmes – demonstrating good practice in Responsible Research and Innovation and evolving what it means in in practice.
5. Catalyst for an initiative on participatory science and co-management in small scale fisheries, directed through the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean.
6. Played a leading role in establishing new organisational structures championing collaborative research approaches (e.g. Fishing into the Future, UK.) Read more

List of Websites:
www.gap2.eu
Dr. Steven Mackinson (Senior Scientific Officer)
Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas)
Pakefield Road
Lowestoft
Suffolk
NR33 0HT
United Kingdom
Email: steve.mackinson@cefas.co.uk
Phone: +44 (0) 1502 524295, Fax: +44 (0) 1502 524511

Final Report Summary - GAP2 (Bridging the gap between science, stakeholders and policy makers <br/>Phase 2:Integration of evidence-based knowledge and its application to science and management of fisheries and the marine environment)

Related documents

Share this page

Download