1. Mediation for Fishery Management in the Irish Sea
Penang, April 16, 2009
Ortwin Renn
University of Stuttgart
And DIALOGIK gGmbH

2. Fishery Management Models
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999
3 May 1999
Fishery Management Models
Traditional methods
Quotas (enforced by governments)
Property rights on the resource
Tradeable certificates (market auction)
New cooperative methods
Decision analytic methods (utils)
Round Tables
Mediation
Other participatory forms of decision making
Draft 1

3. Problem of Irish – Sea Fisheries
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999
3 May 1999
Problem of Irish – Sea Fisheries
Overfishing
High diversity of fish
Impossibility to target one fish species only
Increase of catch in spite of declining number of fishing businesses
Widely ineffective regulation
Quotas are highly contested
Quotas lead to high discart and bycatch
EU competitors inside the area
Conflicts among and between fisheries
Draft 1

4. The Project: Investinfish
Taking Control in Pensions Planning 1999
3 May 1999
The Project: Investinfish
Characteristics
Initiated by WWF
Financed by EU, British and Irish Government
Model of Round Table (Mediation)
Process
Round Table from 2003 to 2006
Intensive scientific modelling in
External facilitator of the Round Table
Final agreement in October 2006
Draft 1

5. The model of deliberation
Round Table
Participants: Stakeholders
Method: Analytic-deliberative discourse
Supervision: Scientific Advisory Council
Scientific Modelling
Research questions framed by Round Table
Iterative process between modellers and stakeholders

6. Participants of the Steering Committee:
Fishing Industry (small and large)
Angler Association
Fish Processing Industry
Environmental Groups (4 groups)
Retailers
Restaurateurs
Community development agency
Observers: EU, British, Irish Officials

7. Participants of the Project:
Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Society (B.A.S.S.)
Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation (CFPO)
Cornwall County Council
English Nature
Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
Falfish
Marks & Spencer
Moshi Moshi
National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

8. Participants of the Project:
South Western Fish Producers Organisation
National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)
SEAFISH
South West Regional Development Agency
The Wildlife Trusts
Worshipful Company of Fishmongers
WWF-UK
European Union AS AN OBSERVER
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) AS AN OBSEVER

9. Background: Round Table
Theoretical Foundations
Mediation
Formal decision making aids
Deliberative style of decision making
Practical implementation
12 plenary meetings in three years
16 group meetings
Accompanied by regional community assemblies and public opinion polls

10. Crucial questions for decision making
Inclusion
Who: stakeholder definition
What: options, scenarios, etc.
Why: problem representation, framing
Closure
What counts: selection process
What is more convincing: argumentation process
What option is selected: balancing process

11. Combination of formal and discursive methods
Formal component
Structuring tool (options, criteria, performance and weights)
Quantification as “educational” tool
Quantification as “first cut”
Quantification as result to be discussed
Deliberative component
Argumentation over structured options
Argumentation over options enlightened by quantitative analysis
Juxtaposition of holistic and numerical results
Argumentation over numerical results

12. Modelling Structure: Overview
What matters?
Dependent variables (what is the problem?)
Criteria of concern (value tress with criteria)
What are the options?
Business as usual
Management options
How do the option perform on the criteria?
Modelling
Uncertainty analysis
How do you interpret the results?
Quality
Relevance
How do you assign relative weights?
What decision rule are you going to employ?
Expected values
others
Sensitivity analysis
Redefining options
Final decision

13. Specific Requirements for Multi-Actor and Multi-Dimensional DM
Clear mandate and time frame
Agreement on available and suitable options
Willingness of legal decision makers to give product of deliberation serious attention
Willingness of all parties to engage in mutual learning process
Refraining from moralizing other parties or their positions

14. Value Tree Analysis Single value trees Joint value tree
Representation of each stakeholder’s concerns
Structured in hierarchical order
Validated for comprehensiveness and representativeness
Joint value tree
Representation of all stakeholders’ concerns
Non zero-sum-game because all concerns can be integrated (possibility of zero weights)

15. Purpose of value trees
Assistance to each group in articulating its own:
Criteria of concern
Evaluation criteria
Preferred options
Diagnostic tool to identify:
Areas of consensus
Conflicting values or criteria
Win-win solutions
Input for scientific modelling:
What factors to consider
What options to consider
Criteria for choosing performance criteria

16. Steps of Value Tree Exercise
Generation of individual trees
Interviews with representatives of each group
Suggestion of value tree by analyst
Iterative process of validation
Authorization by respective group
Generation of joint value tree
Presentation of individual value trees to steering group
Proposal by analyst for a joint tree
Discussion in the Steering Group
Authorization

17. Results of Value Trees I
Positive economic outlook for fishing industry
Sustained profitability
Long term viability for small and medium size fishing businesses
Improved attractiveness and image
Sustained ocean environments
Healthy and abundant fish stocks
Equilibrium between fishing and stock recovery
Restoration of biodiversity
Effective, fair and reliable regulatory regime
Emphasis on regional self-governance and self-control (empowerment)
Guarantee for coexistence of commercial fishing and sports fishing
Emphasis on flexibility
Emphasis on inclusive governance (all relevant parties)

18. Results of Value Trees II
Positive contribution to community development
Fishing as integral part of the community
Sustainable economic development prospects for fishing communities
Harmony with partners in value chain
Effective reporting system
Satisfaction of the end consumers

19. Science modelling Results of computer models between: (Input)
Zoning
Seasonal restrictions
Quotas and licenses
Gear and technology
And outcome of modelling
Fish stock development
Biodiversity development (with large uncertainties)
Potential income development and probably distribution
Effects on fish that anglers value
Options that could not be modelled
Different governance structures (regional empowerment)
Self-policing and compliance management
Organisational and behavioural changes

20. Accomplishments I
Assigning performance values for each criterion of the value tree
Based on data from the scientific models
Based on experiential and local knowledge
Based on legal and administrative constraints and opportunities
Based on remaining uncertainties
Assignment of relative weights for each criterion
For each stakeholder group separately
For the whole Steering Group
Selection of decision rule
Expected values
Minimax, Maximin, Min regret

21. Further Accomplishments
Sensitivity analysis
Data uncertainties
Model uncertainties
Relative weights
Change of option structure
Redefining options
Compensation for negative impacts
Combination of options
Final decision
On preferred option package
On implementation plan
On monitoring

22. Trends on option selection
Overriding dissatisfaction with present quota system
Acceptance for seasonal, regional or other type of closures (no take zones), if control remains on the local or regional level
Overall acceptance for minimum and maximum landings if effect is proven
Joint fact finding missions with scientists and fishermen (Norwegian Model)
Need for new solution on bycatch and discart (several proposals were made)

23. Selected Options Five substantive options (core group) Process options
Decommissioning
Technical (Mesh size)
Area based measures
Reduction of bycatch (inter-fishermen-arrangements)
Others
Process options
Recommendations on process
Recommendations on procedures

24. Process Options Local Governance Link to vertical governance
Local-regional coordination boards
Self-regulation among fishing boats (compliance)
Accommodation to situation (flexibility)
Inclusion of local interests
Link to vertical governance
Implication for national policies (UK and Ireland)
Implications for RACS (European component)
Joint fact finding with scientists and fishing industry

25.  Final Note   Deliberative processes for involving stakeholders are instruments of art and science: They require a solid theoretical knowledge, a personal propensity to engage in group interactions, and lots of practical experience  

26. Review of Cooperative Models
Organized stakeholders
Hearing
Round Tables (Forum, Dialogue Processes)
Negotiated Rulemaking
Mediation and Alternate Conflict Resolution
General public
Ombudsperson
Public Hearings
Citizen Advisory Committees
Citizen Forum, Planning Cells, Citizen Juries
Consensus Conferences (Danish Model)

27. The Risk Management Escalator (from simple via complex and uncertain to ambiguous phenomena)
Risk Tradeoff Analysis and Deliberation Necessary
Risk Balancing Necessary
Risk Assessment Necessary
Types of Conflict:
cognitive
evaluative
normative
Actors:
Risk Managers
External Experts
Stakeholders such as Industry, Directly Affected Groups
Representatives of the Public(s)
Discourse:
participatory
Ambiguous
Risk Balancing Necessary
Risk Assessment Necessary
Types of Conflict:
cognitive
evaluative
Actors:
Risk Managers
External Experts
Stakeholders such as Industry, Directly Affected Groups
Discourse:
reflective
Uncertain
Scientific Risk Assessment Necessary
Types of Conflict:
cognitive
Actors:
Risk Managers
External Experts
Discourse:
Complex
Routine operation
Actors:
Risk managers
Discourse:
internal
Simple