Nonetheless, filling Pifithrin-�� concentration the matrices had helped the scientists with mapping uncertainties in a structured way and facilitated the communication among the scientists. As the participatory work had mainly been driven by

the stakeholders themselves, the extended peer review was not carried out using a questionnaire. Instead, two of the main RAC-stakeholders presented their impressions and reflections of the collaborative work in the JAKFISH final symposium. The Nephrops case study is an example of lack of communication and mutual understanding between scientists and stakeholders. Comparing the extended peer review with reflections of JAKFISH Nephrops scientists, there had been different perceptions about the work progress: From a JAKFISH perspective, the case study experienced significant delays and problems, which affected negatively the project outcomes. The case study did not progress

in terms of the scientific goals and the expected FLR development. From the stakeholders’ perspective, the evaluation proved much more positive: e.g., “Almost all the fishers believed that it was right to protect the stocks via long term management plans”, and “Importantly – Fishers felt they had been listened to” [73]. The main lessons learnt therefore relate to ways of problem framing, communication, education, and planning. Mutual problem framing in an open, transparent, truthful and flexible way is crucial in a participatory modelling process to identify the real stakes, problems, and needs. Internal conflicts, e.g., between different stakeholder groups (here: small coastal versus PF-02341066 price larger offshore fleets) can block a collaborative process [74]. Hanssen et

al. [74] suggest that science should focus on reducing societal dissent in complex unstructured situations where scientific uncertainties abound and different interests play a role. In the Nephrops case study, focussing on L-NAME HCl the “facilitation” strategy from the beginning could have been more rewarding, i.e., instead of continuing with a poorly defined participatory modelling goal, scientists should focus on resolving the societal conflict first, keeping in mind that consensus is not always possible in international settings with several stakeholder groups in different countries. It is concluded that one should only start modelling, once the need to model has been stated and a goal for modelling has been identified. In the Nephrops case study, it appears that initially, the JAKFISH scientists had perceived the modelling as too much centre-stage, and participation was secondary. Mutual trust benefits from open and transparent communication. The historical relationship between fisheries and science has left some legacies of mistrust amongst parties. The ability to overcome these is crucial to the success of mutual problem framing.