Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Institutional and substantial uncertainty—Explaining the lack of adaptability
in fish stocking policy
Annica Sandström n
Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history:
Received 15 May 2010
Received in revised form
10 June 2010
Accepted 11 June 2010
Adaptive management implies a system in which policy and practice are constantly revised in a
continuous circular process to accommodate new ecological knowledge. In the case of current fish
stocking practices, there is an evident gap between science and practice indicating a lack of adaptability.
While fish stocking is perceived as a solution to many problems of modern fishery management,
scientific researchers warn that current practices, including introducing alien populations, seriously
threaten the sustainability of fish stocks. The aim of this study was to address, explain the existence of
and, finally, discuss the prospect of narrowing this gap. For this purpose, the characteristics of the policy
subsystem were analyzed. The empirical findings highlight the wickedness of the policy problem. The
substantial and institutional uncertainties surrounding the issue are proposed as the main reasons for
the deficits in adaptability. Fish stocking decisions are made within a complex policy subsystem that
involves multiple actors and policy-making institutions, conflicting goals and competing notions of the
problem. Cross-coalition learning—learning between coalitions of actors with different problem
definitions, forming a joint view—is a necessary and, in the case of fish stocking, lacking variable in the
adaptive management process.
& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Adaptive management
Policy
Science
Governance
Genetic diversity
Fish stocking
1. Introduction
It is generally agreed that integration of new scientific
knowledge into the process of management is a necessary
precondition for the establishment of adaptive management
systems and the sustainable use of natural resources [1–3]. Even
so, the establishment of adaptive management systems in which
knowledge, policy and practice are integrated, and continuously
revised and adapted to new conditions, constitutes a real
challenge. This paper sets out to address the often complicated
link between science and management, which holds a prominent
position in adaptive management theory. This topic will be
elaborated, and the challenges illustrated, focusing on the
empirical case of fish stocking practices in Sweden.
Fish stocking, the intentional introduction or release of
hatchery-reared fish into the wild, is a central tool in modern
fishery management, and intentional introductions are made for
several reasons: to support threatened fish stocks, to increase the
volume of harvestable yield or to compensate for hydropower
development [4,5]. At the same time, scientific research points at
severe downsides of current stocking practices [6,7]. Of particular
concern is the use of alien populations (here used synonymously
with the term alien genotypes), i.e., genetically distinct groups
n
Tel.: + 46 920 49 13 56; fax: + 46 0920 49 13 99.
E-mail address: [email protected]
0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.06.009
within species that are introduced outside their natural range
[8,9] via fish stocking. There is a ‘‘scientific consensus that both
intentional and unintentional release of cultivated fish poses
serious risks to the genetic identity of the recipient populations’’
[5]. Natural gene stocks might be limited, become extinct or
change radically, decreasing the level of local adaptiveness. By
extension, this might also have implications for biodiversity on
the species and ecosystem levels [10].
Swedish stocking practices suffer from significant shortcomings in how these issues are considered. A review of recent years’
stocking decisions revealed that alien populations, as defined
above, are used, and introductions are neither properly documented nor adequately followed up and evaluated [7,11]. Thus,
there is an evident gap between prevailing scientific advice and
practice that might jeopardise future ecological sustainability. The
situation has been attributed to insufficient scientific knowledge
[12] and an implementation failure on the national level [5,13]. In
this paper, these tentative explanations are reconsidered and
revised as the characteristics of the policy subsystem [14], both
the substance of policy and the structure of policy-making bodies,
are analyzed in the search for an explanation.
Thus, the aim of this paper is to address and propose
explanations for the lack of adaptability in Swedish fish stocking
policy. Two main questions are asked. First, how can the gap
between scientific knowledge and practice be explained? Second,
how can this gap be narrowed? The study provides both empirical
and theoretical contributions to adaptive management research.
1358
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
2. The case, method and material
Sweden is a candidate for empirical study for several reasons.
First, numerous releases are made each year [10] and, while
Sweden often is considered an international leader in environmental policy, there are documented divergences between the
concerns expressed by science and actual practice. Thus, apart
from the case-specific empirical findings, the study can generate
theoretical insights into the difficulties and challenges of adaptive
management that are likely also relevant for other policy areas
and countries, at least within the European context.
The operational decisions concerning fish stocking are made at
the County Administrative Board (CAB) level; CABs are the
subnational government authorities in Sweden. These decisions
are framed by policies formulated on other political and
administrative levels that – together – constitute the policy
subsystem that is the focus of the forthcoming empirical analysis.
The study uses a classic top-down analytical approach [15], as the
term policy refers to the formulations of problem, goals and
means expressed in official documents. The operational decisions
regarding introductions, previously mentioned as practices,
represent the policy outcome. For the purpose of studying the
policy subsystem, a textual analysis of legal documents and
written policies that concern the intentional introduction of
hatchery-reared fish in Sweden was conducted. Additionally, the
most central documents concerning biodiversity and alien species
strategies were included in the analysis. To delineate the research
problem, and to restrict the scope and amount of empirical
material, only documents that are relevant for the release of
salmonids in the Baltic Sea were considered. The reasons for this
were threefold. First, these species are commonly used for largescale introductions. Second, genetic considerations are of particular importance in these species since they are composed of
genetically distinct populations. Third, salmonids are well
researched, which means that considerable scientific information
describing the genetic composition and possible impact of
stocking exists [16]. The empirical analysis did not cover the
specific policy frameworks regulating introductions with regard
to trade, compensational releases, genetically modified organisms
or introductions within Natura 2000 areas.
The research problem dealt with in this study involves the
science–policy interface, researched within the framework of
science and technology studies [17]. Still, this paper is not
intended to examine the role of science or the scientific
community in policy, from either a normative or an empirical
perspective.
3. Theory
The inherent complexities of ecological systems constitute the
focal point of departure for the adaptive management approach
[2,18]. Due to the vast ecological uncertainties, management must
be sensitive and responsive to ever changing conditions. Adaptive
management is a continuous learning process in which management rules and regulations are constantly revised based on what
is known about the ecological system. In such a process, the
generation and integration of new ecological knowledge become
absolutely crucial. Accordingly, knowledge – both local ecological
knowledge and scientific knowledge – and change are key
concepts within the adaptive management approach [1,3,19].
Adaptive management is often visualised as a circular process
involving, for example, the stages of knowledge generation, goal
formulation, generation of measures and indicators, systematic
observations, monitoring and evaluation [20,21]. An adaptive
process comprises a large set of qualities. For the purposes of this
paper, though, the notion of the necessity of a connection
between new ecological (here, scientific) knowledge and management is adopted as a point of departure. If an adaptive policy
subsystem is characterised by a correspondence between current
scientific knowledge and policy outcome, Swedish fish stocking
practices illustrate a situation in which ambitions for such a
system have not been fully realised.
Adaptive policy making might be elementary in theory, but it
is significantly complicated in reality. The link between science/
knowledge, policy and policy outcome in the adaptive circle is far
from straightforward. The policy chain, just like the adaptive
circle, covers several stages, from the formulation of a problem to
the implementation of a solution [22,23]. Public policy making in
general, and environmental policy making in particular, essentially deals with wicked societal problems that are characterised
by great uncertainty regarding the substance of the problem
(substantial uncertainty), the strategies of other actors (strategic
uncertainty) and the overall institutions governing the processes
(institutional uncertainty) [24,25]. Thus, even though the adaptive
circle illustrates an approach and a model on how to deal with
ecological uncertainties, the social and political uncertainties that
pose serious challenges to environmental policy making remain.
These uncertainties complicate the different stages in the
adaptive policy circle. In this paper, the focus is on substantial
and institutional uncertainties and their effects on adaptability.
Substantial uncertainty relates to the function of problem
formulation in the adaptive circle and has to do with how the
fundamental policy problem is defined and comprehended in the
subsystem. Policy problems are differently framed as ideas about
what the problem is, what the cause is and how it should be dealt
with are formulated [26]. Different belief coalitions composed of
different actors come to share the same view of the problem, i.e.,
policy beliefs emerge [14]. Applied to the case of fish stocking, actors
might have different viewpoints concerning whether fish stocking is
a problem or not, what type of problem it is and for whom and what
corrective measures to apply. The substance and structure of
existing belief coalitions within the subsystem significantly affect
the function of defining a common view of the problem, which has
proven to be particularly decisive for the results of policy-making
processes [27–29]. To achieve change, relevant belief coalitions of
actors must agree that there is a problem. A policy subsystem in
which there is no common agreement concerning the nature of the
problem is here regarded as a subsystem struggling with substantial
uncertainty. In the case of fish stocking, substantial uncertainty will
be investigated by mapping the policy beliefs that can be detected
through the textual policy analysis.
To address uncertainty stemming from institutional complexity, the structure of policy-making bodies was also explored. Thus,
the empirical analysis was made using the following questions as
a point of departure: (i) Within what organisations are policies
regarding genetic diversity and fish stocking formulated? (ii) Is
the spread of alien populations regarded as a problem for genetic
diversity and environmental sustainability? (iii) Are stocking
practices identified as a cause of this problem? Additionally,
policy proposals for dealing with the problem were considered.
Thus, the underlying theoretical hypothesis is that substantial and
institutional uncertainties complicate any ambitions of establishing adaptive policy-making systems. Therefore, the policy subsystem of fish stocking was analyzed with regard to policy
substance and institutional structure.
4. Results
The empirical analysis started at the international level. In
Table 1, the policy-making bodies are listed and the policies are
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
1359
Table 1
Organisations and policies on the international level.
Organisation
Program/decision
Policy substance
UN Convention on
The Convention text [8]
Biological Diversity (CBD)
’’’’Biological diversity’’ means the variability among living organisms from all
sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems
and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity
within species, between species and of ecosystems’’ (Article 2).
‘‘Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which
threaten ecosystems, habitats or species’’ (Article 8h).
COP (conference of the parties) decisions concerning alien The threats of alien genotypes on genetic biodiversity are acknowledged. [9,30]
species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species
[9,30]
Alien species is defined as: ‘‘species subspecies or lower taxon, introduced
outside its natural past or present distribution [y]. If they ‘‘threaten biological
diversity’’ they are regarded as invasive.
Partners are requested to develop regulations and legislation to deal with the
problem.
15 non-binding recommendations concerning national regulations:
All introductions of alien species and genotypes, potentially invasive, must be
authorised.
Permits should only be given for introductions unlikely to threaten biodiversity.
Burden of proof lies with the applicant.
Permissions can be conditioned.
The precautionary principle is stressed [9].
FAO and ICES codes of conduct (see below) should be taken into account when
forming national regulations [30].
COP decisions concerning marine and coastal biodiversity The importance of genetic diversity is stressed [31].
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) [32]
UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International
Watercourses (watercourses convention) [33]
UN Food and Agriculture Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries [34]
Organisation (FAO)
International Council on
the Exploration of Seas
(ICES)
Code of Practice on the Introductions and Transfer of
Marine Organisms [35]
summarised. The CBD and documents adopted within the
framework of this convention include important formulations
and definitions that are relevant for the problem studied herein.
First and foremost, the convention includes variability on the
genetic level in the definition of biodiversity and, thus, does not
merely discuss biodiversity on the ecosystem and species levels.
Furthermore, the convention states that signing parties are
required to prevent the spread of alien species. Similar
formulations on the matter of alien species are also found in the
UNCLOS and the UN watercourses convention.
The spread of alien populations is not explicitly addressed in
any of the above referenced conventions. It is, however, addressed
in decisions related to the CBD (see the COP agreements in
Table 1). Here, the term alien species is defined as ‘‘species,
subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or
present distribution [y]’’ [9], thereby including genetically
distinct populations. These populations are regarded as invasive
if they threaten biological diversity. The genetic integrity of fish
stocks is protected within the framework of these agreements and
partners are requested to develop national regulations and
legislation for this purpose. The recommendation is that all
stocking decisions be authorised and permitted only when
introductions are unlikely to threaten biodiversity—a recommendation that stresses the precautionary principle. Additionally, in
developing national frameworks, countries are required to take
the voluntary codes developed by the FAO and ICES, also listed in
Table 1, into account. The FAO document discusses the genetic
Biodiversity loss caused by intentional spread of alien species is addressed.
Biodiversity loss caused by intentional spread of alien species is addressed.
Protection of biodiversity emphasised. Countries are asked to confer with
adjacent countries before introductions are made.
Harmful effects from the use of non-native species or genetically altered stocks
in aquaculture (due to escapes, not intentional introductions) are acknowledged.
Addresses genetic loss caused by intentional introductions of alien genotypes.
Countries should present a proposal plan to the ICES for evaluation before new
introductions are made.
Genetic impacts from introductions of species part of current practice should be
monitored.
consequences that might result from escapes from aquaculture
facilities. The ICES document, on the other hand, explicitly
discusses the genetic consequences of fish stocking practices,
and certain precautionary actions, such as prior risk analyses and
monitoring, are suggested as part of good practice.
Table 2 presents policies and organisations on the European
level. Many policies, strategies, binding regulations and directives
originate from European Union (EU) institutions. Some of these
address biodiversity in general; others focus on specific areas such
as fishery policy, aquaculture policy and water or marine policy.
Table 2 reveals that some documents acknowledge biodiversity on the genetic level while others focus on the species or
ecosystem level only. For example, the Habitats Directive, which
is the most important regulatory tool for conservation and
biodiversity issues, treats the risks from introductions on the
species level only. This is also the case in the Bern Convention,
which deals with the problem of invasive alien species, including
damage to socioeconomic values (cf. the definition in the
CBD). The essence of some texts listed in Table 2 is difficult to
interpret. The Water Directive, for example, does not specifically
address the topic of alien species. However, alien species are
included as one variable in determining water quality in a
guidance document related to the framework (see Table 2).
The council regulation concerning Use of Alien and Locally
Absent Species in Aquaculture seems to apply to the topic dealt
with in this paper. The regulation emphasises both the benefits
and potential risks associated with the use and introduction of
1360
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
Table 2
Organisations and policies on the European level.
Organisation
Program/decision
Policy substance
European Commission
European Commission
Community Biodiversity Strategy [36]
Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries [37]
European Council
European Council European
Commission
The Habitats Directive [38]
Water Framework Directive [39] Common
Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework
Directive [40]
Marine Strategy Framework Directive [41]
Briefly addresses genetic diversity.
Alien species and their impact on genetic biodiversity are addressed.
Introductions of alien species should be limited. Current stocking programs of
salmon are questioned and more research on this topic is requested.
Risks of introductions of alien species are acknowledged.
Does not address alien species or genotypes. Alien species are one variable to
consider when determining water quality.
European Council
European Council
European Commission
European Commission
European Commission
Use of Alien and Locally Absent Species in
Aquaculture [42]
Detailed Rules for the Implementation of [y] Use of
Alien and Locally Absent [y] [43]
Amending Annex IV to Council Regulation [y]
Concerning Use of Alien and Locally Absent [y] [44]
A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of
European Aquaculture [45]
Building a Sustainable Future for Aquaculture [46]
Halting the Loss of Biodiversity 2010 and Beyond [47]
Introductions of non-native species should not affect the ecosystem negatively.
The distribution (not specifically intentional) of non-indigenous species or, where
relevant, genetically distinct forms of native species should be one variable in the
analysis of current environmental status.
Acknowledges both benefits and risks with the use and introduction of alien
species and populations.
Refers to ICES Code of practice, i.e., introductions should include a risk analysis
and be authorised.
The risk analysis should cover the genetic consequences that might occur in the
interface between introduced and native stocks.
The regulation above does not cover introductions and translocations of locally
absent species within member states, unless there is clear scientific evidence
indicating environmental threats.
A list of species is excluded from the regulation above.
Risks of new introductions to genetic biodiversity are addressed. ICES Code is
perceived as good practice.
European Commission
Neither intentional introductions nor genetic diversity are discussed.
European Commission
Problems with invasive alien species and genotypes are highlighted. No common
legal framework for these issues exists.
Working Document. Annex to Halting the Loss of
Stock enhancement is suggested as a measure to sustain salmon stocks, without
Biodiversity 2010 and Beyond [48]
acknowledging the risks of such programs.
European Commission
Toward an EU Strategy on Invasive Alien Species [49] Discusses the development of a community framework dealing with invasive
alien species. Different policy proposals are presented. Nothing about genotypes.
Council of Europe, The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Highlights the problems with invasive alien species and stresses the importance of
Natural Habitats (The Bern Convention) [50]
controlling introductions.
The term invasive includes socioeconomic damages.
European Inland Fisheries
Codes of Conducts for Recreational Fisheries [51]
The connection between intentional introductions and risks of genetic loss is
Advisory Commission (EIFAC)
explicitly expressed.
Introductions of non-native species should be avoided.
Fish stocking should be the last alternative.
The Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) [52]
Discusses biodiversity in general terms.
HELCOM
Baltic Sea Action Plan [53]
Addresses the importance of genetic biodiversity.
Serious consequences of current stocking practices (for salmon and salmon trout)
are acknowledged.
More appropriate breeding and stocking practices are needed to safeguard future
sustainability of wild stocks.
Salmon Action Plan (SAP) 1997–2010 [54]
International Baltic Sea
The interplay between wild and reared stocks is discussed, and the risks are
Fishery Commission (IBSFC),
highlighted.
HELCOM
Stresses the importance of monitoring the effects of releases.
European Commission
Consultation Paper to Support the Development of a The old plan (SAP 1997-2010) is criticised due to its restocking targets. Specific
Baltic Salmon Management Plan [55]
objectives for the genetic status of Baltic Sea salmon are suggested.
alien species and populations. It refers to the ICES Code of Practice
(see Table 1) and states that the risk analysis should encompass
the genetic consequences that might occur as introduced and
native stocks interact. However, in the document specifying how
to implement the regulation, the most common species are all
excluded and it is made clear that the regulation does not cover
introductions and translocations of locally absent species within
member states, unless there is scientific evidence indicating
environmental threats.
The lower rows in Table 2 list documents that more directly
consider the genetic impacts from alien populations caused by
intentional introductions. The EIFAC codes of conduct stipulate
that fish stocking should be the last alternative for fishery
management. In the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, the serious
consequences of prevailing restocking practices are recognised
with regard to salmon and sea trout, and more appropriate
breeding and restocking practices are requested to safeguard the
future sustainability of wild stocks. This topic is further
elaborated in the Salmon Action Plan 1997–2010 (SAP), developed
by the HELCOM and the IBSFC. As the IBSFC ceased to exist in
2007, the process to develop a new Baltic Salmon Management
Plan was taken over by the EU. In the consultation paper (see the
last row of Table 2) starting this process, the restocking targets in
previous SAPs were criticised and objectives for the genetic status
of salmon populations were suggested for inclusion in the new
plan. Table 3 lists organisations and policies on the national level.
Biodiversity, particularly on the ecosystem and species levels,
is a concern for Swedish fishery policy and constitutes one of
sixteen goals guiding national environmental policy. The topic of
fish stocking is discussed in some government bills listed in
Table 3, although somewhat ambiguously, and there is seemingly
a conflict between economic and ecological interests with regard
to the problem. In coastal fishing, lake fishing and aquaculture, for
example, the genetic risks of introductions are acknowledged.
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
1361
Table 3
Organisations and policies on the national level.
Organisation
Program/Decision
Policy Substance
Swedish Government
Swedish Environmental Objectives – a
Joint Task [56]
Goal 16: A rich diversity of plant and animal life: clear emphasis on diversity on ecosystem and
habitat levels.
Alien species or genotypes that threat human health or biological diversity should not be
introduced.
Swedish Government
Coastal Fishing, Lake Fishing, and
Aquaculture [57]
Avoid introductions of alien species; fish stocking should be the last alternative.
The genetic consequences of introductions are discussed, and the great potential of both wild
and reared salmon for coastal fishing and tourism is acknowledged.
Swedish Government
Some Fishery Policy Issues [58]
Natural fishery production should be prioritised.
All three aspects of sustainability are emphasised; still, it is acknowledged that the fishing law
is based on fishing rights and not on resource conservation.
Ministry of Agriculture
The National Strategy for Fishery
Industry in Sweden 2007–2010 [59]
Genetic biodiversity is mentioned in a discussion of how different fishery measures affect
biodiversity. Nothing about intentional introductions.
Swedish Parliament
Fisheries Law [60]
The government, or the authority that the government nominates, can formulate regulations
concerning how conservation interests should be taken into account in fishery. These conditions
are, however, not allowed to intervene in a way that significantly restrict fishery.
The government, or the authority that the government nominates, can prescribe that an
analysis concerning the impact on fishery from releases be conducted. The one attempting to do
the introduction is responsible for the analysis (based on the environmental code [61]).
The government, or the agency that the government nominates, can stipulate that certain
permits are needed and decide on the conditions for these permits to release, move, or cultivate
fish.
Swedish Government
Regulation on Fishing, Aquaculture and
the Fishing Industry [62]
Swedish Board of Fisheries (SBF) communicates prescriptions with regard to environmental
concerns in fishery.
SBF or the County Administration Boards (CAB’s) can decide that analyses of the environmental
impacts from intentional introductions should be conducted. The Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency (SEPA) should be given the possibility to remark on the matter. SBF and CAB
can decide that the one attempting to do the release also perform, or found, the analysis.
All introductions, or movement of fish from one area to another, require permissions that are
issued by the CABs. Permissions can be combined with certain conditions. Permissions cannot
be given for species or populations that are considered inappropriate for the water or when
risks of spreading diseases exist.
Salmon, or salmon trout, to be introduced in water adjacent to the sea must be marked. SBF can
decide on exceptions from this rule. SBF can formulate further prescriptions on the matter.
Swedish Board of Fisheries
(SBF)
Regulation on the Culture, Stocking, and Permissions cannot be given for country alien species or alien populations, i.e., species or
Movement of Fish [63]
populations brought to the country after the year 1800.
However, rainbow trout, brook char, lake char, and native species and populations that Sweden
has in common with either Norway or Finland are excluded from the rule above.
Certain restrictions on salmon, due to the risk of spreading diseases, exist.
Salmon can only be introduced in fresh water or in water adjacent to the sea if local populations
are used.
Swedish Board of Fisheries
(SBF)
Introductions and Spread of Fish [4]
A conflict between short-term and long-term goals, economic values, and ecological values with
regard to fish stocking practices is acknowledged.
Habitat improvements and fishing regulations, not introductions, should be the first
alternatives for fishery management.
Genetic consequences must be considered when making introductions. Species or populations
should not be spread outside their natural range.
It is recommended that the same genetic composition as the receiving stock be used. Stock and
number of releases should be included in the application. Stocking programs should be
evaluated and consequences documented.
Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency (SEPA)
National Strategy for Alien Species and
Genotypes [64]
The importance of following up on and evaluating introductions is emphasised.
The precautionary principle is stressed, while the benefits of alien species and genotypes in
fishery management are acknowledged.
Fish stocking should be the last alternative, but the great potential
of both wild and reared salmon stocks for coastal fishing and
tourism is emphasised.
The national legal framework that regulates introductions of
fish consists of the Environmental Code (to a minor extent), the
Fisheries Law, government regulations and the regulations of the
Swedish Board of Fisheries (SBF) (see Table 3). Together, these
documents set the conditions for the operational stocking
decisions that are made at the CABs. In short, all introductions
or movements of fish from one area to another require permissions that are issued by the CABs. Permissions are denied for
species or populations that are considered inappropriate for the
character of the water or when there is the risk of spreading
disease. Permissions cannot be given for alien species or alien
populations, defined as non-native species or populations brought
to the country after the year 1800 (cf. definition in CBD). However,
this rule does not apply to species like rainbow trout, brook char,
lake char or native species and populations that Sweden has in
common with either Norway or Finland. Specific conditions and
requirements are also stipulated for species like char and salmon.
Of foremost relevance here is that salmon can only be introduced
in water adjacent to the sea if local populations are used.
Consequently, for species other than salmon, the legal framework
is opened for the spread of genetically distinct populations
1362
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
(i.e., alien populations) among different regions within the
country and for releases of Norwegian and Finnish species and
populations that naturally occur in the country.
In the SBF strategy for introduction and spread of fish, another
viewpoint is proposed—one stating that stocking should be
avoided, that species or populations should not be spread outside
their natural range and that the same genetic composition should
be used when stocking is necessary. Tensions between short-term
goals and long-term goals, between economic values and
ecological values, with regard to fish stocking practices are clearly
visible in some of the reviewed policy documents.
The three questions formulated to capture the characteristics
of the policy subsystem can now be addressed: i) Within what
organisations are policies regarding genetic diversity and fish
stocking formulated? ii) Is the spread of alien populations
regarded as a problem for genetic diversity and environmental
sustainability? iii) Are stocking practices identified as a cause of
this problem? To start with the first question, the empirical
analysis reveals a multi-level and multi-sector framework of
organisations. Policy is produced on the international, European
and national levels and within different policy sectors, being
a matter of concern for both fishery policy and conservation
policy. A set of non-governmental organisations is involved in
policy making. Altogether, this underlines the impression of a
policy subsystem characterised by great institutional complexity
and related uncertainties.
Considering the two latter questions, no unequivocal answers
can be given since the empirical analysis reveals great diversity
and range. There is no consensus on how the problem is
comprehended. Policy documents dealing with biological diversity or alien species do not necessarily encompass the genetic
level, and fish stocking is not always perceived as a cause of
genetic loss.
To exemplify and further elaborate on this reasoning, the term
biological diversity does not always include genetic diversity;
there is generally a strong emphasis on the ecosystem and species
levels. Furthermore, there is no consistency in how the term
species is used, whether it includes lower taxonomic levels, such
as genetically distinct populations, or not. Divergences related to
the term alien also exist. One definition, formulated in the CBD
agreements, refers to species or populations with different genetic
compositions that are introduced outside their natural range,
while other definitions, adopted, for example, in the EU regulation
and the national regulations, regard national borders or even time
as decisive criteria. In addition, policies depart in how the term
invasive is understood, exemplified by a comparison between the
CBD and the Bern Convention.
It is not clear when policy applies to intentional introductions
or solely to unintentional introductions. Finally, the level of
awareness varies extensively and the topic is far from prioritised
on all agendas. Thus, the policy subsystem consists of different
belief coalitions with different notions of the problem. The
relationship between intentional introductions and genetic loss,
and the severity of the situation, is recognised in only a handful of
documents, mostly in voluntary codes, management plans and
other non-binding strategies. Seemingly, the closer to being
legally binding, the larger the gap between science and policy.
Further reflections can be made when looking closer at the
documents that actually do address the topic of genetic concerns
in fish stocking. The problem is mostly acknowledged in
documents dealing with the Baltic Sea salmon stocks. Furthermore, the kinds of measures that are suggested to deal with the
problem vary exceedingly. This can be illustrated by contrasting
the call for more research in the EU Biodiversity Action Plan with
the proposition to formulate specific goals concerning the
proportion of reared and wild stocks that was suggested in the
preparation work preceding the new Baltic Salmon Management
Plan. In general, however, the policy proposals are vaguely
formulated and no radical changes are suggested. The conflicts,
and possible trade-offs, between different aspects of sustainability emerge when analyzing suggested policy measures, for
example, when the ecological benefits of a total prohibition are
weighed against the socioeconomic values generated through fish
stocking. To conclude the empirical presentation, the analysis
provides a picture of a policy subsystem characterised by vast
substantial and institutional uncertainties.
5. Discussion
The aim of this paper was to address and propose explanations
for the lack of adaptability in Swedish fish stocking policy. Two
questions were asked. First, how can the gap between scientific
knowledge and practice in fish stocking be explained? Second,
how can this gap be narrowed? The underlying hypothesis was
that the problems with adaptability stem from the fact that we
are dealing with a wicked societal problem that given its
characterising features significantly complicates any ambition to
establish adaptive policy-making processes. The empirical analysis verified that the policy subsystem features considerable
substantial and institutional uncertainties. In the forthcoming
sections, these characteristics are discussed and related to the
deficits in adaptability.
To start with the institutional complexity, fish stocking is
embedded in a multi-level governance framework [65] covering
different policy areas. Thus, the problem of concern crosses both
vertical levels and horizontal sectors of governance. Horizontal
complexity is further increased by the fact that many nongovernmental organisations, representing various interests, are
involved in policy making. Altogether, these institutional factors
pose serious challenges to the achievement of adaptive policy
making. Responsibility is widely spread, and it is difficult to
determine exactly what type of problem this is and the party
responsible for the solution. For example, are the genetic
consequences of fish stocking a concern for fishery policy or
conservation policy? Issues related to alien species are primarily
dealt with in the environmental conservation sector, e.g., through
the SEPA, while the activity causing the problem, i.e., stocking, is
regulated within the fishery sector (SBF). Additionally, the
problem crosses subareas also within the fishery policy sector—the borders between aquaculture policy and conventional
fishery policy and between fresh water policy and marine policy.
Thus, numerous institutional uncertainties, and institutional
clashes, complicate the adaptive process. For example, the
tensions among the three aspects of sustainability previously
identified can partly be explained by the institutional structure of
the subsystem since different values must be balanced [66].
Should the economic interests that benefit from fish stocking be
promoted or should the ecological concerns be prioritised? Should
prevailing practices be evaluated due to their impact on economic
performance or due to their ecological consequences? The
problem is that considerable value conflicts promote the
existence of various belief coalitions with competing views.
The analysis showed that there is no common view with
regard to the problem. Instead, different belief coalitions exist.
Additionally, the analysis showed that the problem is described
with a set of multifaceted and ambiguous concepts and considerable inconsistency in terminology [13]. Another complicating
factor that relates to substantial uncertainty is that fish stocking
has current positive effects on fisheries, while possible negative
consequences must be seen in a longer time perspective [10].
Should the present or future, actual or possible, consequences be
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
taken into account? Even though the precautionary principle is
generally adopted, its application is far from straightforward.
Thus, the policy problem spans time, ecosystems, administrative jurisdictions, belief coalitions and the institutional borders
of science and policy. The institutional and substantial uncertainties are proposed as the main explanations for the identified gap
between science and policy outcome, indicating a lack of
adaptability. Thus, the situation cannot be described solely as an
implementation failure. How could it be when there is no clear
policy to implement? The situation also cannot be explained by
an insufficient knowledge base, a standpoint that is further
elaborated in the section below.
Without acknowledging the uncertainties of the policy subsystem – and their relationship to adaptability – all arrangements
to enhance adaptability will be ineffectual. A traditional public
management approach would be to focus on enhancing adaptability by reducing uncertainty, most probably by requesting
more scientific research [24]. This rationalistic approach to policy
making is evident in some of the documents reviewed in this
paper, and it is also illustrated in the EU Commission’s communication on scientific advice in fishery policy [67,68]. The basic
idea is that more and better science will increase adaptability.
Contrary to this view, the principal aim of a network approach to
public management is to handle uncertainty. According to this
alternative perspective, increased knowledge production is an
important but not a necessary prerequisite for adaptive policy
making [24]. Scientific knowledge might play a central role in
policy making by influencing how a problem is understood, by
raising concerns and by placing issues on the political agenda
[69,70]. Still, the processes of problem formulation are considerably aggravated by the fact that ecological knowledge more often
than not is interpreted differently and often contested [71]. More
science might in fact promote, and not mitigate, disagreements
between different belief coalitions [72–74]. Thus, the message
proposed here is that a management approach mainly aimed at
generating more research will not succeed in narrowing the gap
between science and policy outcome since the belief coalitions
within the subsystem will receive and comprehend the information differently. Evidently, a certain amount of scientific uncertainty will always remain [75] and even though multi-level and
multi-actor policy structures increase institutional complexity,
these institutional structures, and cross-scale linkages, are
absolutely crucial in dealing with this type of problem [24,76].
Thus, in line with the network approach, public management
aimed at enhancing adaptability must be directed toward
handling – rather than reducing – uncertainty.
How can the gap between science and policy in this disorderly
subsystem be narrowed? To handle uncertainty and achieve
change, learning across belief coalitions on various levels and in
different policy sectors must occur [14,77]. Researchers, policy
makers and stakeholders must exchange world views and
formulate a common notion of the problem. The rationalistic
view of science in policy ought to be replaced with a view
emphasising cross-boundary policy learning. The bottom line
proposed here is that a sole focus on generating new ecological
knowledge will not succeed in narrowing the gap; instead, policy
networks crossing belief coalitions are needed. The interface
between science and policy can be organised through the
establishment of various kinds of boundary organisations, and
the recent trend is to institutionalise stakeholder involvement,
forming collaborative structures of stakeholders, policy makers
and scientists [78–82]. The success of these structures is,
however, far from given and will depend upon, for example, the
structure of the collaboration networks and on the conflict level
and distribution of power within the subsystem as a whole
[74,83–85]. Thus, cross-coalitional policy learning with regard to
1363
the genetic consequences of fish stocking is a prerequisite for
adaptive policy making, although the establishment of these kinds
of processes is coupled with many challenges.
6. Conclusions and future research
Adaptive management implies a system in which policy and
practice are constantly revised in a continuous circular process to
accommodate new ecological knowledge. The challenges associated with the realisation of such processes have been elaborated
in this paper using fish stocking as an example. The proposition is
that the perceived gap between scientific knowledge and practice
can be explained by the characteristics of the governance system,
the substantial and institutional uncertainties. The lower level
bureaucrats who make stocking decisions must navigate within a
complex policy subsystem of multiple actors and policy-making
institutions, conflicting goals and disparate problem definitions.
In general terms, a common view regarding the problem and its
solutions is a necessary and, in the case of fish stocking policy,
lacking variable in the adaptive circle. A management approach
focused on handling, rather than reducing, uncertainties by
promoting learning among coalitions of actors with different
notions of the problem is the most promising way forward to
enhance the adaptability of the policy subsystem.
This study generates topics for future research. First, the
challenges that have been illustrated in this paper, using Sweden
as a point of departure, are likely also present in other countries. A
comparative analysis of how various Baltic Sea countries deal
with uncertainties and how they respond to international and
European policies would, therefore, be highly relevant. Second,
while this study constitutes a classic top-down policy analysis, a
next step would be to carry out a bottom-up analysis, starting at
the subnational level, to study how and on what grounds stocking
decisions are actually made. After a reconstruction of the cause of
events and the considerations of the decision-making actors, it
could be determined in what respects the formal governance
system reviewed in this paper actually affects decisions making.
How is the problem defined at the operational level and based on
what knowledge? What kinds of policy networks, or sets of actors,
affect the operational decisions and what belief coalitions can be
found within these networks? Studies elaborating these questions
would certainly generate contributory findings about the preconditions for adaptive policy making.
Acknowledgment
This study has been made within the research program
BaltGene—Baltic Sea Genetic Diversity. The program was founded
by the Baltic Organisations Network for funding Science EEIG,
BONUS, and the Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning, FORMAS. I gratefully
acknowledge the financing bodies and all colleagues within the
program. A special thanks to my colleague Carl Rova at Luleå
University of Technology.
References
[1] Walters C. Adaptive management of natural resources. New York: MacMillan
Publishing Company; 1986.
[2] Holling CS, editor. Adaptive envrionmental assessment and managmenet.
Chichester cop; 1978.
[3] Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker B. Resilience
and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of
transformations. Ambio 2002;31(5):437–40.
[4] Sparrevik E. [Introductions and spread of fish]. Utsättning och spridning av
fisk. Finfo 2001:8. Göteborg: Swedish Board of Fisheries; 2001.
1364
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
[5] Olsson J, Aho T, Florin A-B, Vainikka A, Bekkevold D, Dannewitz, J, et al. Genetic
research on commercially exploited fish species in Nordic countries. TemaNord
2007:542. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2007.
[6] Laikre L, Ryman N. Effects on intraspecific biodiversity from harvesting and
enhancing natural populations. Ambio 1996;25:504–9.
[7] Laikre L, Palmé A. [Spread of alien populations in Sweden]. Spridning av
främmande populationer i Sverige Rapport 5475. Stockholm: Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency; 2005.
[8] Convention on Biological Diversity. Concluded at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June
1992. URL: /http://www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml 2009-10-21S.
[9] Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity. COP 6 Decision VI 23, 2002. [online ] URL: /http://www.cbd.int/
decision/cop/?id=7197 2009-10-21S.
[10] Pakkasmaa S, Petersson E. [Fish in inappropriate waters. Ecological
consequences of fish stocking]. Fisk i fel vatten. Ekologiska konsekvenser av
utsättningar av fisk. Finfo 2005:9. Drottningholm: Swedish Board of Fisheries,
Fresh Water Laboratory; 2005.
[11] Laikre L, Palmé A, Josefsson M, Utter F, Ryman N. Release of alien populations
in Sweden. Ambio 2006;35(5):255–61.
[12] Swedish Board of Fisheries. [Alien species and populations] Främmande arter
och stammar. Promemoria DNR 101-01910-2006, 2006.
[13] Subsidiary body on scientific, technical, and technological advice within the
CBD. Report of the ad hoc technical expert group on gaps and inconsistencies
in the international regulatory framework in relation to invasive alien
species, Auckland, New Zealand, 16–20 May 2005. URL: /http://www.cbd.
int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-11/information/sbstta-11-inf-04-en.pdfS
2010-05-02.
[14] Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC. The advocacy coalition framework: an
assessment. In: Sabatier PA, editor. Theories of the policy process. Boulder:
Westview Press; 1999. p. 117–68.
[15] Sabatier PA. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation
research. A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy
1986;6(1):21–48.
[16] Laikre L, Palmé A, Larsson L.C, Charlier J, Rydman N. Effects from the spread of
alien populations [Effekter av spridning av genetiskt främmande populationer. Rapport 5881]. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency; 2008.
[17] Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T, editors. Handbook of science and
technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.
[18] Walters C. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal
ecosystems. Ecology and Society 1997;11(2). URL.
[19] Lee KN. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the
environment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1993.
[20] Plummer R. The adaptive co-management process: and initial synthesis of
representative models and influential variables. Ecology and Society 2009;
14(2). URL.
[21] Carlsson L, Danell K. [Mangagment of change]. Förvaltning i ständing
förändring. Aktuell forskning om vilt, fisk och förvaltning. Nr. 1/2006. Vilt
och Fisk, 2006. URL: /http://www.viltochfisk.se/FaktabladPDF/2006,%20Fakta
blad%
201,%20web.pdfS.
[22] Hogwood BW, Lewis GA. Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; 1984.
[23] Parsons W. Public policy. An introduction to the theory and practice of policy
analysis. Chetterham Lymne: Edward Elgar; 1995.
[24] Koppenjan J, Klijn E-H. Managing uncertainties in networks. London:
Routledge; 2004.
[25] Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences 1973;4:155–69.
[26] Schön DA, Rein M. Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable
policy controversies. New York: Basic Groups; 1994.
[27] Carlsson L. Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies Journal
2000;28(3):502–20.
[28] Rochefort DA, Cobb RW. The politics of problem definition: shaping the policy
agenda. Lawrence, ken: University Press; 1994.
[29] Kingdon JW. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies.
New York:
HarperCollins College Publishers; 1995.
[30] Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. COP 7 Decision VII/13. URL: /http://www.cbd.int/
decision/cop/?id=7750S.
[31] Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity. COP 9 Decision IX/20. URL: /http://www.cbd.int/
decision/cop/?id=11663S.
[32] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1992. URL:
/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.
pdfS.
[33] United Nations Convention on the law of the non-navigational uses of
international watercourses (Watercourses convention), 1997. URL: /http://
untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_3_1997.pdfS.
[34] Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO). Code of
conduct for responsible fisheries, 1995. URL: /http://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/
005/v9878e/v9878e00.pdfS.
[35] International Council on the Exploration of Seas (ICES). Code of practice on the
introductions and transfers of marine organisms, 2005. URL: /http://www.
ices.dk/reports/general/2004/ices%20code%20of%20practice%202005.pdfS.
[36] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council
and the European Parliament on a European Community biodiversity
strategy. COM 1998, 42 final. URL:/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:51998DC0042:EN:NOTS.
[37] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council
and the European Parliament. Biodiversity action plans in the areas of
conservation of natural resources, agriculture, fisheries, and development
and economic co-operation. COM 2001, 0162 final. URL: /http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52001DC0162(01):EN:
NOTS.
[38] European Council. Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (The Habitats Directive). URL: /http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:
NOTS.
[39] European Council. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy. The Water Framework Directive. URL:
/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000
L0060:EN:NOTS.
[40] European Commission. Common implementation strategy for the Water
Framework Directive. Guidance document no 13. Overall approach to the
classification of ecological status and ecological potential. URL: /http://
www.waterframeworkdirective.wdd.moa.gov.cy/docs/GuidanceDocuments/
Guidancedoc13Classification.pdfS.
[41] European Council. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action
in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework
Directive). URL: /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CE
LEX:32008L0056:EN:NOTS.
[42] European Council. Council regulation (EC) No 708/2007 of 11 June 2007
concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture. Official
Journal of the European Union. URL: /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/
LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:168:0001:0017:EN:PDFS.
[43] European Commission. Commission regulation (EC) No. 535/2008 of 13 June
2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of council regulation
(EC) No. 708/2007 of 11 June 2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent
species in aquaculture. Official Journal of European Union. URL: /http://
eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:
L:2008:156:0006:0009:EN:PDFS.
[44] European Commission. Commission regulation (EC) No. 506/2008 of
6 June 2008 amending Annex IV to council regulation (EC) No. 708/2007 of
11 June 2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in
aquaculture. Official Journal of European Union. URL: /http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:149:0036:0037:
EN:PDFS.
[45] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council
and European parliament. A strategy for the sustainable development of
European aquaculture. COM 2002, 511 final. URL: /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri ¼COM:2002:0511:FIN:EN:PDFS.
[46] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council
and European parliament. A strategy for the sustainable development of
European aquaculture. COM 2002, 511 final. URL: /http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0511:FIN:EN:PDFS.
[47] European Commission. Communication from the Commission. Halting the
loss of biodiversity by 2010—and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for
human well-being. COM 2006, 216 final. URL: /http://ec.europa.eu/develop
ment/icenter/repository/com2006_0216en01_en.pdfS.
[48] European Commission. Commission staff working document. Annex to the
communication from the Commission. Halting the loss of biodiversity by
2010—and beyond. Sustaining ecosystem services for human well-being. SEC
2006, 607. URL: /http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/
comm2006/pdf/sec_2006_607.pdfS.
[49] European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council,
the European parliament, the European economic and social committee and
the committee of the regions. Towards an EU strategy on invasive species.
COM 2008, 789 final. URL: /http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasi
vealien/docs/1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pdfS.
[50] Council of Europe. Convention on the conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (The Bern Convention 1979). URL: /http://conventions.coe.
int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htmS.
[51] European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC) Codes of conducts
for recreational fisheries. EIFAC Occasional Paper No. 42. 2007. URL: /ftp://
ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0363e/i0363e00.pdfS.
[52] Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea
area. The Helsinki Convention (HELCOM), 1974, 1992, 2008. URL: /http://
www.helcom.fi/stc/files/Convention/Conv1108.pdfS.
[53] HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. 2007. URL: /http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/
BSAP/BSAP_Final.pdfS.
[54] IBSFC Salmon Action Plan 1997–2010. Resolution IV. Adopted during the
extraordinary session, February 1997. URL: /http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/
cfp/governance/consultations/baltic_salmon/action_plan_en.pdfS.
[55] European Commission. Consultation paper to support the development of a
Baltic Salmon Management Plan. MARE D 2009 1460. URL: /http://ec.
europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/governance/consultations/baltic_salmon/consultation_
document_en.pdfS.
A. Sandström / Marine Policy 34 (2010) 1357–1365
[56] Prop 2004/05:150. [Swedish environmental objectives—a joint task]. Svenska
miljömål—ett gemensamt uppdrag. Government Bill. Stockholm: Swedish
Parliamentary Record.
[57] Prop 2003/04:51. [Coastal fishing, lake fishing and aquaculture]. Kust- och
insjöfiske samt vattenbruk. Government Bill. Stockholm: Swedish Parliament
Record.
[58] Prop 1993/94:158. [Some fishery policy issues] Vissa fiskeripolitiska frågor.
Government Bill. Stockholm: Swedish Parliamentary Record.
[59] [The national strategy for the fishery industry in Sweden 2007–2013.]
Nationell strategisk plan för fiskerinäringen i Sverige 2007–2013. Ministry of
Agriculture, Sweden.
[60] SFS (1993:787) [Fisheries law] Fiskelag. Stockholm: Swedish Parliamentary
Record. URL: /http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=
1993:787S.
[61] SFS (1998:808) [Environmental Code] Miljöbalk. Stockholm: Swedish
Parliamentary Record. URL: /http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.as
px?nid=3911&bet=1998%3a808S.
[62] Government regulation (SFS 1994: 1716) on fishing, aquaculture and the
fishing industry [Förordning (1994:1716) om fisket, vattenbruket och
fiskerinäringen]. Swedish Parliamentary Record. URL: /http://www.
riksdagen.se/webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3911&bet=1994%3a1716S.
[63] Swedish Board of Fisheries regulation (FIFS 2001:3) on the culture, stocking
and movement of fish [Fiskeriverkets föreskrifter (FIFS 2001:3) om odling,
utplantering och flyttning av fisk]. URL: /https://www.fiskeriverket.se/
download/18.64db7e331133fb433ef8000383/2001-3-keu.070704.pdfS.
[64] Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. [National strategy and action
plan for alien species and genotypes]. Nationell strategi och handlingsplan för
främmande arter och genotyper. Rapport 5910. Stockholm: Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency. URL: /http://www.naturvardsverket.se/
upload/04_arbete_med_naturvard/frammande_arter/strategi_frammandearter_
080623.pdfS.
[65] Bache I, Flinders MV, editors. Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; 2004.
[66] Thatcher D, Rein M. Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance: An
International Journal of Policy Administration, and Institutions 2004;17(5):
457–86.
[67] Wildavsky A. Speaking truth to power: the art and craft of policy analysis.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co; 1979.
[68] European Commission. Communication from the commission. Improving
scientific and technical advice for community fishery management. 2003/
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
1365
C47/09. Official Journal of the European Union. URL: /http://ec.europa.eu/
fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/03_c47_en.pdfS.
Chasek PS, Dl Downie, Brown JW. Global environmental politics. Boulder, CO:
Westview; 2006.
Haas PM, Kehohane RO, Levy MA. Institutions for the earth: sources of
effective international environmental protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;
1993.
Hoppe R. Policy analysis, science, and politics: from ‘‘speaking truth to
power’’ to ‘‘making sense together’’. Science and Public Policy 1999;26(3):
201–10.
Burden BC, editor. Uncertainty in American politics. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 2003.
Lindblom CE, Cohen DK. Usable knowledge: social science and social problem
solving. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1979.
Weible CM. Expert-based information and policy subsystems: a review and
synthesis. The Policy Studies Journal 2008;36(2):615–35.
Lemons J. Scientific uncertainty and environmental problem solving.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science; 1996.
Berkes F. Commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the
Commons 2008;1(2):1–6. URL.
Haas PM. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the
policy process Journal of European Public Policy 2004;11(4):569–92.
Hoppe R. Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization
and science technology studies to types of boundary agreements. Poiesis Prax
2005;3:199–215.
Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, et al.
Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2006;100(14):
8086–91.
Nilsson M. The role assessments and institutions for policy learning: a study
on Swedish climate and nuclear policy formation. Policy Sciences 2006;28:
225–49.
Gibbs M. Network governance in fisheries. Marine Policy 2008;32:113–9.
Börzel T. Networks in EU multi-level governance: concepts and contributions.
Journal of Public Policy 2009;29(2):135–52.
Adam S, Kriesi H. The network approach. In: Sabatier PA, editor. Theories of
the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; 2007. p. 129–54.
Carlsson L, Sandström A. Network governance of the commons. International
Journal of the Commons 2008;2(1):33–54. URL.
Weible CM, Sabatier PA. comparing policy networks: marine protected areas
in California. The Policy Studies Journal 2005;33(2):181–201.