Exploring the phronetic dimension of stakeholders' knowledge in EU fisheries governance

• Referring to Aristotle's concept of phronesis, different knowledge types in EU fisheries governance are analysed.
• Distinctions between science and politics, and natural versus social science issues are discussed.
• The missing role of social science/phronesis exposes major governance problems.
• Social dimensions of knowledge and stakeholder input are key for governance success.
• Problems of employing phronesis for Regional Advisory Councils are revealed.

Fisheries management is said to be in a perpetual state of crisis, both globally and in Europe. The causes and possible remedies of these problems often create political controversy. Is the solution more and better science or more and better politics? Does one need to improve the former, the latter or both? Or is something else missing? This paper investigates these questions by drawing on social theory and theories of knowledge. The issue of science versus politics and the role of different knowledge perspectives from stakeholders in decision-making are discussed with reference to the Regional Advisory Councils within EU fisheries, in particular, the council for the Baltic Sea. It is argued that a lost ‘value-rationality’ and the aspects of phronetic knowledge and research need to be included in the highly instrumental and science-based EU fisheries policy system to establish environmental and social sustainability in the sector.