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.

1. Defining reference points for the
Precautionary Approach:
persistent attempts to neatly arrange the
boundary between science and policy
Martin Pastoors

3. How has ICES operated in defining
precautionary reference points?

4. 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

5. 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.”

6. 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.”

7. 1997: EC asks ICES to investigate reference
points with 95, 90 and 80% risk levels

8. 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

9. 2. Uncertainty was hidden
instead of at the center

10. How could policy-makers could have
made a decision on risk-levels?

11. 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

12. Table with reference points in 1998

13. A choice in risk-tolerance was never
presented. Precaution was scientifized

14. 3. Boundary between science and
policy remains contested

15. Original idea for boundary science-policy
“but fisheries management
agencies should be involved in
decisions on precautionary
reference points”
Policy
Science
“It is in ACFM’s
mandate to make
final decisions on
limit reference point”

16. But science could not give the answers:
ongoing struggles to refine reference points

17. Precautionary approach is really a boundary
concept: different meaning to different groups

18. Boundary science-policy is dynamic
and needs awareness of roles

19. 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

20. Yes, it is difficult to neatly arrange the
boundary between science and policy