Uncertainty and hyper-precision in fisheries science and policy

This essay discusses various uncertainty aspects of advice on fish quotas in the North-East Atlantic provided by ICES (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). A key conclusion is that while the epistemic uncertainties may be considerable, the advisory framework does not account for these, but sets considerable limitations on what issues, expertise and knowledge is relevant for quota advice. The uncertainty is treated as if it were quantifiable, i.e. a technical problem without epistemic uncertainty. However, since estimates and predictions of stock states are presented with hyper-precision, not even the technical uncertainty is reflected adequately. The inadequate handling of uncertainty is value-laden as the risks and the risk bearers change with different choices of theoretical models. Yet, the ICES framework for quota advice advocates a strict division between science and policy. ICES's claim of producing unbiased advice and the managers’ demand for scientific advice without interference with policy can be regarded as attempts to defend a clear-cut division. Further, the hyper-precision can be seen as a symptom of a sub-optimal management system and can be understood as an attempt to deny that the situation is one of post-normal science.