Bringing experiential knowledge into fisheries science advisory processes: Lessons learned from the Canadian experience of participatory governance

Canada has made a policy commitment that the science peer review and advisory processes of government departments should be transparent and inclusive of diverse sources of knowledge. During this policy's development, the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat experimented with many approaches to include fishermen and others with experiential knowledge in the science-based meetings to assess fish stock PF status and produce harvest advice. Approaches explored included a) '' open door '', b) institutional representatives, c) invited individuals, d) industry '' observers '' without full OF intervention privileges, e) alternating technical meetings of scientists and non-technical meetings with industry. This paper reviews the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Among the lessons learned are: a) Invited individuals with full participation rights has the most strengths and fewest weaknesses. b) Never designate an individual at a science meeting as a representative of an organisation or sector. c) The presence of media is highly disruptive. d) Skilled chairs of inclusive meetings are essential (and hard to find) e) 'Consensus advice' does not mean all participants must agree on a single interpretation of stock status and harvest. It is enough to reach consensus on the risks and the evidence consistent and not consistent with competing interpretations, and let the political process manage the risks.