For the Love of the Sea: Technocratic Environmentalism and the Struggle to Sustain Community-Led Aquaculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a resubmission and represents my second review of the manuscript. The revised version shows certain improvements, particularly in clarifying the methodological orientation and incorporating additional ethnographic descriptions. However, the revisions have not fully addressed the key issues. The theoretical framework still requires further development, the methodological transparency remains limited, and the policy implications are insufficiently defined.

 

1. Human centered interdisciplinary sustainable development science (THiSS) remains a broad label. This article does not fully explain what new theoretical insights have emerged from this case that go beyond existing literature in political ecology and environmental anthropology.

 

2. The current manuscript lacks a systematic analysis of the research results. The discussion of other global cases (e.g., Scotland and Canada) remains superficial and does not provide sufficient analytical generalization or comparative insight.

 

3. The methodology section still does not clearly explain how the data is analyzed, encoded, and validated. What is the coding category? How is reliability guaranteed?

 

4. The direction of reform could be further clarified. For example, by explaining how the licensing process might better integrate community knowledge and how the funding structure could be adjusted to support this integration.

 

5. The sampling strategy for interviews and participant observation remains unclear.Please specify how participants were selected and whether saturation was achieved.

 

6. The concept of “Technocratic environmentalism”is explained but not operationalized. The authors should clarify how this concept is measured or identified in the specific context of the study.

 

7. Section 2.1 remains overly verbose. Further editing for conciseness is recommended to improve the section’s clarity and readability.

 

8. Consider adding a table summarizing key fieldwork activities, e.g., hours of observation, number of interviews.

 

9. Check formatting of references for consistency, e.g., someaccess datesare missing.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We are very grateful for your detailed second review. The revised version of the article represents a clear and deliberate evolution from a critical ethnography into a more balanced, policy-oriented and conceptually integrated study. The original paper strongly emphasised the conflict between technocratic environmentalism and community-led aquaculture, whereas the new version reframes this relationship as one of complementarity and mutual learning. The structure has been strengthened throughout. The introduction now sets out clearer research questions, the methodology provides fuller details on coding, sampling and fieldwork, and the ethnographic sections have been reorganised under clearer subheadings. A more explicit account of the regulator’s perspective has been added, addressing earlier concerns about one-sidedness.  The most significant addition is the final section, Lessons from Câr-y-Môr (6.1–6.3), which distils the study’s findings into three guiding principles. Stylistically, the paper is more coherent, with improved referencing.

1. Human-centred interdisciplinary sustainable development science (THiSS) remains a broad label. This article does not fully explain what new theoretical insights have emerged from this case that go beyond existing literature in political ecology and environmental anthropology.

We appreciate this observation and acknowledge that THiSS remains an emerging framework. In the revised manuscript (Methodology, p.7), we have clarified its grounding in relational epistemology and Kimmerer’s concept of “braiding” knowledge systems. We also show how it enables transdisciplinary dialogue between regulatory practice and lived experience. We recognise that the theoretical contribution does not present a discrete “new theory,” but rather an empirically grounded articulation of how care operates as governance in practice. Our intention was to advance THiSS by demonstrating its application to small-scale aquaculture governance rather than to claim a novel theoretical model. We therefore limited further theoretical elaboration in order to remain consistent with the article’s ethnographic and practice-based emphasis.

2. The current manuscript lacks a systematic analysis of the research results. The discussion of other global cases (e.g., Scotland and Canada) remains superficial and does not provide sufficient analytical generalisation or comparative insight.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this limitation. We fully agree with you. The paper has now separated the results and its discussion. In Section 2.1 (p 3-5), we have added comparative references to Scotland, Australia, and Canada to situate the Welsh case within a wider body of small-scale aquaculture governance research and theses comparisons have been set next to our findings in our discussion section. We have deliberately kept these comparisons concise to ensure that the manuscript remained within Sustainability’s word constraints and to avoid implying a level of systematic cross-case analysis not supported by our primary data.

Our approach remains intentionally qualitative and context-specific. The additional references are intended to signal conceptual resonance rather than offer an exhaustive comparative framework, which we agree would require a separate paper.

3. The methodology section still does not clearly explain how the data is analysed, encoded, and validated. What is the coding category? How is reliability guaranteed?

We have now specified the key coding categories (“technocratic constraint,” “regenerative labour,” “embodied ecological knowledge,” and “gendered coastal expertise”) in the Methodology section (p.7-8). Given the interpretive nature of ethnography, our analytic process emphasises reflexivity and triangulation rather than statistical validation. We acknowledge that reliability procedures such as inter-coder checks were not feasible within this small collaborative team. Instead, interpretive rigour was ensured through iterative team discussions, shared coding reviews, and reflexive journaling. We have clarified this in the revised text (p.7-8). We hope this provides a clearer justification of the methodological approach within ethnographic norms.

4. The direction of reform could be further clarified. For example, by explaining how the licensing process might better integrate community knowledge and how the funding structure could be adjusted to support this integration.

We agree that this is a valuable and necessary area for policy elaboration. In the revised Discussion (Sections 5.1–5.3, pp. 13–16), we have strengthened our analysis of proportionate and relational governance, and we have also introduced a new concluding section, Lessons from Câr-y-Môr (Sections 6.1–6.3, pp. 17). This addition distils the policy-relevant insights of the study under three subheadings: Proportionate and Responsive Regulation, Recognising Local and Embodied Knowledge, and Creating Space for Experimentation and Learning. Rather than outlining detailed regulatory reforms, these sections identify guiding principles for future collaboration between communities and regulators. We intentionally avoided prescribing specific procedural changes, as the research remains ethnographic in focus rather than policy-design. Our aim has been to articulate the underlying principles of reform, mutual learning, proportionate regulation, and relational governance, so that these may inform future applied policy work with regulatory partners. We believe this approach best aligns with the evidential scope and methodological remit of the study while maintaining analytical integrity and contextual sensitivity.

5. The sampling strategy for interviews and participant observation remains unclear. Please specify how participants were selected and whether saturation was achieved.

We appreciate this request and have now provided further detail in Section 3.1 (p. 7–8). We describe the use of purposive and snowball sampling and explicitly note that interviews continued until thematic saturation was reached. We have chosen not to include a full demographic breakdown of participants, as this would risk compromising anonymity within a small community of practitioners. Our priority has been to protect confidentiality while providing sufficient methodological transparency for readers to understand the scope and depth of engagement.

6. The concept of “Technocratic environmentalism” is explained but not operationalised. The authors should clarify how this concept is measured or identified in the specific context of the study.

We thank the reviewer for raising this important conceptual point. In the revised version (Introduction Section 1, p. 1-2; Background Section 2, p 3-4 and Discussion Section 5.1, p. 13–14), we have clarified that technocratic environmentalism is not treated as a measurable variable but as an interpretive construct visible through the everyday interactions between regulation and marine practice. Our methodological choice reflects the ethnographic orientation of the study, which identifies technocratic processes through participants’ narratives, temporal disjunctures, and embodied experience. We recognise that this differs from an operationalised social-science model, but it remains consistent with anthropological analytical conventions.

7. Section 2.1 remains overly verbose. Further editing for conciseness is recommended to improve the section’s clarity and readability.

We appreciate this stylistic observation and have made significant reductions to Section 2.1. However, the section remains relatively long because it performs several essential functions: it reviews the relevant literature to contextualise the study, establishes the conceptual framing linking technocratic environmentalism to bureaucracy, temporality, and governance, and introduces comparative studies that situate the Welsh case within a wider international field. As these elements are foundational to the paper’s argument, we have chosen to retain analytical depth, prioritising coherence and completeness over brevity to preserve the strength of the overall framing.

8. Consider adding a table summarising key fieldwork activities, e.g., hours of observation, number of interviews.

We appreciate this helpful suggestion and agree that a table would enhance clarity. In this revised version, we have instead integrated the relevant information directly into the Methodology section (p. 12), providing a concise summary of interview numbers and observation hours. The section has also been shortened and rationalised for greater coherence. However, we would like to stress that the rigour of this study lies not in data quantity but in interpretive depth achieved through sustained relational immersion. In that sense, although we acknowledge that a table of fieldwork activities may add some clarification of numbers, methodological depth in ethnography does not necessarily come from a set number of hours or activities in the field.    

9. Check formatting of references for consistency, e.g., some access dates are missing.

We have carefully checked all references for consistency and corrected formatting and added access dates throughout.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made point-to-point revisions according to the reviewer's suggestions. I agree to publish the revised manuscript in accordance with the journal format requirements

Author Response

We are very grateful for your second review, though unfortunately we were unable to access the full text of your comments. Nevertheless, we appreciate your engagement with the revised manuscript and your recognition of the improvements made in methodological clarification and the inclusion of additional ethnographic description. We have carefully reflected on your previous feedback and sought to address each of the key points in this version.

The revised article represents a considered development from a primarily critical ethnography into a more balanced, policy-oriented and conceptually integrated study. While the original paper emphasised the tensions between technocratic environmentalism and community-led aquaculture, the new version reframes this relationship as one of complementarity and mutual learning. The paper now more explicitly explores how regulatory and experiential forms of knowledge can coexist productively within sustainability governance.

Structurally, the paper has been strengthened throughout. The introduction now articulates clearer research questions, the methodology provides fuller detail on coding processes, sampling strategies and fieldwork activities, and the ethnographic sections have been reorganised under clearer thematic subheadings. An expanded discussion of the regulator’s perspective has been included, addressing earlier concerns about imbalance, and the narrative as a whole offers a more nuanced portrayal of dialogue between state and community actors.

The most significant addition is the concluding section, Lessons from Câr-y-Môr (6.1–6.3), which synthesises the main findings into three guiding principles: proportionate and responsive regulation, recognition of local and embodied knowledge, and the creation of space for experimentation and learning. This section strengthens the policy relevance of the paper while remaining consistent with its ethnographic scope. Stylistically, the paper is now more coherent, with improved referencing and a clearer progression of argument throughout.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My main criticism of your original submission (Sustainability 3703362) was that it was too one-sided. In the conflict between technocratic environmentalism and community aquaculture you presented the case for community aquaculture very persuasively but ignored the case for technocratic environmentalism. In your resubmitted paper you respond to this criticism by including some material that explains the perceptions of the environmental regulators. However, I have the following (minor) reservations about your resubmitted paper:

 

• Clarification that your argument is for complementarity rather than competition

 

I note that you characterise community aquaculture as based on experiential knowledge that is complementary not contradictory to scientific/technical knowledge:

 

“This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on the value of qualitative information in sustainability research, emphasizing that local and experiential expertise should complement, rather than compete with, scientific data” (lines 96-99)

 

So experiential knowledge is on a par with scientific knowledge – neither can claim superiority over the other:  

 

“Integral to THiSS is the understanding that local expertise derived from lived experience is valued equally with scientific data and humanities evidence” (lines 25-257)     

 

Your position is one of “epistemological pluralism” (line 267). We need both experiential and scientific knowledge:

 

“Our discussion highlights the voices of the community at Câr-y-Môr, bringing this thread of situated and embodied knowledge to the fore, while recognizing that the necessity of learning from the realities of human experience “does not diminish the relatively important and somewhat privileged role of science” (lines 353-356)

 

So you are not arguing that regulators should replace scientific knowledge with experiential knowledge, but that they should integrate the two. Instead of ignoring or dismissing experiential knowledge altogether as anecdotal/unreliable/subjective/serendipitous, and regarding scientific knowledge as the only trustworthy form of environmental analysis, regulators should acknowledge that experiential knowledge has a legitimate claim to be heard in decision-making forums.

 

• Your rehearsal of the regulator’s perspective is rather thin, and overshadowed by immediate criticism:

 

“From NRW’s perspective, regulation is necessary to protect sensitive ecosystems. Staff emphasized that even small-scale projects can cause significant ecological harm if poorly located, pointing to risks for reef habitats, seagrass beds and entanglement with species such as seahorses. They also suggested that some seaweed farmers resist licensing not only because of bureaucracy, but because they view their activities as inherently beneficial and therefore struggle to accept the need for regulation. For Câr-y-Môr, however, the issue was not the principle of regulation but the practical burden of engagement. When NRW representatives visited the farm, the day was remembered less as a constructive dialogue than as another disruption to overstretched operations. These dynamics show that licensing for regenerative aquaculture is complicated and nuanced: regulatory caution serves vital ecological goals, but the way procedures are structured often places disproportionate burdens on small-scale projects” (lines 380-391).

 

What is the difference between “the principle of regulation” and “the practical burden of engagement”? You acknowledge that “regulatory caution serves vital ecological goals”, but you say “the way procedures are structured often places disproportionate burdens on small-scale projects”. How could the principle of regulation be applied in a way that does not inflict disproportionate burdens on small-scale projects? You give examples of ways in which regulations could be more accommodating to small-scale projects, and you assert that:

 

“If community-led sustainability is to thrive, it must be supported by systems that do more than acknowledge alternative knowledge. It is licensing, funding and policy systems that must adapt to accommodate these practices, not the other way around” (lines 654-657)

 

So you are asking regulators not only to integrate experiential knowledge into scientific knowledge but to change their “licensing, funding and policy systems” to suit the requirements of community projects. I suspect regulators would say such changes are not feasible economically and could undermine the integrity of their principles of regulation.

 

Author Response

We are very grateful for your detailed and thoughtful follow-up review. We particularly appreciate your recognition that the revised paper now gives greater attention to the perspective of environmental regulators and more explicitly situates the argument in relation to both scientific and experiential forms of knowledge. Your summary of our intended position was very helpful, and we have made several further refinements to ensure this balance is clearer throughout the paper.

1. Clarification that your argument is for complementarity rather than competition

We agree entirely that our argument concerns complementarity, not competition, between experiential and scientific knowledge. We appreciate the reviewer’s precise synthesis of this position and have adjusted our phrasing in several places to make the point even clearer. In the revised manuscript we now emphasise that Câr-y-Môr’s experiential knowledge should be worked with rather than supersede scientific approaches, and that plural epistemologies strengthen, rather than weaken, the robustness of environmental governance. We have inserted clarifying language in the Abstract and in Section 2.1 (p. 8) to stress that the paper advocates epistemological integration within regulatory frameworks.

2. The regulator’s perspective is rather thin, and overshadowed by immediate criticism

We appreciate this observation and have revised the relevant section (pp. 20–21) to provide a fuller account of the regulator’s perspective. This now includes a clearer explanation of why regulatory caution is vital in fragile coastal ecosystems, how regulators perceive the risks of cumulative impact, and the institutional challenges they face in maintaining consistency and transparency. We have also rebalanced the narrative so that the description of Natural Resources Wales (NRW)’s and Welsh Government’s rationale precedes our discussion of its limitations. We acknowledge that the earlier phrasing may have given the impression that regulatory engagement was presented primarily as a constraint. The revised version now better reflects the complexity of these interactions, recognising that regulatory processes are shaped by legitimate ecological precaution and accountability requirements.

3. Clarification of “the principle of regulation” versus “the practical burden of engagement”

We thank the reviewer for drawing attention to this phrasing, which we recognise could be made clearer. We have now reworded this section (p. 21, lines 380–391) to distinguish more explicitly between:

• The principle of regulation, meaning the legitimate need for oversight to ensure environmental protection and equitable access to marine resources, and
• The practical burden of engagement, referring to the procedural workload, administrative duplication, and time delays that disproportionately affect small-scale operators relative to their environmental impact.

This distinction is now explained directly in the text. The revision clarifies that our critique does not oppose regulation itself but rather advocates proportionate mechanisms through which regulatory aims can be achieved without discouraging community-led sustainability initiatives.

4. Application of the principle of regulation without imposing disproportionate burdens

We have expanded our discussion of this question in the final section, Lessons from Câr-y-Môr (Sections 6.1–6.3, pp. 26–28). These subsections outline three complementary principles, proportionate regulation, recognition of local and embodied knowledge, and space for experimentation and learning, that together offer a constructive way of applying regulatory oversight while mitigating disproportionate burdens. For example, Section 6.1 describes proportionate regulation as calibration of requirements to scale, purpose, and ecological setting. This allows the principle of ecological protection to be maintained while reducing unnecessary administrative strain on small community operators. We also reference comparative examples from Scotland, Canada, and New Zealand, where adaptive licensing frameworks and participatory monitoring have been successfully integrated without compromising ecological standards.

5. Feasibility of adapting licensing, funding, and policy systems

We appreciate the reviewer’s point that regulators might view the structural changes we discuss as economically or administratively challenging. Our intention is not to imply that regulatory systems should wholly adjust to community needs, but that they could evolve toward a more dialogic relationship between state and community. We have clarified this nuance in Section 6 (p. 27), where we describe our argument as an invitation to institutional learning rather than as a prescriptive reform agenda. Our position is that regulatory integrity and community knowledge are not opposing values but interdependent components of effective governance. Adaptive mechanisms, such as tiered licensing, pilot project exemptions, or “permission to learn” models, allow regulatory principles to remain intact while enabling innovation in low-risk, high-social-value contexts. This perspective aligns with the paper’s broader argument for complementarity across epistemic, procedural, and ethical dimensions of sustainability governance.

Concluding Remarks

We thank the reviewer once again for their close reading and constructive critique. The revisions made in response to your comments have led to a clearer articulation of complementarity between experiential and scientific knowledge, a more balanced presentation of the regulator’s perspective, and a better defined explanation of how proportionate regulation can uphold ecological principles without inhibiting community innovation. We believe these refinements strengthen the overall coherence and fairness of the paper, and we are grateful for your guidance in achieving this balance.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is my second review of the manuscript. I appreciate the authors for their revision, and their responses have substantially addressed my concerns.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The major content of this article revolves around a community owned regenerative ocean farm, Câr-y-Môrr, on the coast of Pembrokeshire, Wales. This article explores how community led aquaculture can strive for sustainable development under the constraints of a technocratic system in the context of climate change and environmental governance, contributing to the debates of political ecology and environmental anthropology. However, there are still some shortcomings in the manuscript.

 

Major comments:

1. This paper lacks sufficient depth and only provides a concise summary. What is the main innovation of this study?
2. Regarding the issue of sample representativeness, is it biased to only select the case of Câr-y-Môr? On a global scale, are community led aquaculture in different regions, scales, and models consistent with Câr-y-Môrwhen facing bureaucratic systems? The description of the representative of Câr-y-Môr should be made more robust.
3. The authorsmention that researchers are involved in daily tasks, including seaweed harvesting, drying and processing, shellfish collection, training courses, storytelling activities, team meetings, and public education seminars. Will the presence of researchers cause interference to the staff, thereby affecting the authenticity, reliability, and objectivity of the results?
4. Line 117. A relational ethnographic approach was mentioned, but a detailed description of the methodology or sample size was not mentioned.
5. Although the manuscript points out the limitations of the technocratic system on community led projects, it does not propose specific solutions or improvement suggestions.Based on the findings, providing some suggestions on how to modify the license evaluation criteria is needed, which is benificial to reduce losses, improve efficiency, and ensure sustainable development.
6. Insufficient utilization of figures or tables, with only three figures in the article. Some approval process diagrams can be added appropriately to explain the specific impact of bureaucracy on aquaculture, which helpsvisualize the core findings.
7. The "Supplementary materials" mentioned at the end of the article do not specify the content, and further explanation is needed.
8. Insufficient data presentation and in-depth analysis, with articles mostly using descriptive language and lacking specific research data. There is a lack of in-depth mining and quantitative analysis of the data.

 

Minor comments:

1. In the abstract, it is mentioned that this article has made contributions to the debate between political ecology and environmental anthropology.Where is the specific presentation? A brief summary is needed.
2. There are too many keywords, which leads to a lack of conciseness and a lack of focus on the theme.
3. Line 75. The reference to technocratic environmentalism lacks a detailed explanation.
4. The text in Figure 1 is highlighted in yellow, but not clear enough.
5. Line 95. There is a punctuation error: "As Câr-y-Môrdevelopments, however,, pursuing funding...".
6. Line 209-212. "Supported by £ 1.1 million in DEFRA funding and a £ 250000 loan through the Growth Guarantee Scheme, the farm began constructing new seaweed pro- cessing units, cold storage facilities and a public-facing hub for training, education and community engagement. ”>>  “... cold storage facilities, and a public facing hub...”.
7. The timeliness of the referenced literature in the article is relatively poor, and it is recommended to supplement it with the latest research on "regenerative ocean farming" from recent years.

Author Response

Major comments: the author misunderstands the nature of qualitative research and has frame their response through the lens of scientific studies. Our aim is to highlight the gap between qualitative, humanities informed, narrative rich evidence and quantitative data. It highlights the sort of issues that emerge by listening to experts in the real world rather than measuring scientific norms, one of which is the dissonance between  science, policy, and people.  we have reframed the article to make this more evident. We hope that providing thick description (Deetz) as a form of knowledge we will open up new ways of thinking about the world and the problems that people face highlighting the human/social context.

1. Main innovation is in the application of humanities inclusive transdisciplinary sustainability science. We have reframed the article to illustrate the value of this approach, in particular that of narrative-based inquiry and qualitative evidence rather than quantitative data, in addressing sustainability issues. Our aim is to open up a dialogue on the basis of this article which brings together different ways of knowing the world both within and beyond academia. The abstract and introduction have been rewritten, to reflect this shift and the methodology section has been rewritten to make this approach clearer.

2. Sampling suggests a scientific enquiry. This is not a quantitative, scientific study (see 1). It presents results of participant observation conducted with one of our societal partners.  Following Ingold (2018) our aim is to listen, share and learn from people's lived experiences. We had already clarified in our article that our fieldwork is based in Wales and we are highlighting some of the issues that are experienced there which are challenging its local development.  Through references and discussion in background we make clearer that there are other examples of aquaculture worldwide.

3. See methodology section: participant observation is a recognised methodology in anthropology. This is one of the issues we face in the social sciences, but learning to listen  and pay attention (Ingold 2018 and becoming embedded in a community reveals important  insights about the human context that quantitative science will never be able to address. Our aim is to offer an alternative way of understanding the world and potentially break down the silos of academic inquiry.

4. See methodology section: this has been reworked to make this clearer. As above - sample size and quantitative approaches are not relevant to this methodology

5. Our aim was not to provide solutions but to highlight this a a specific concern that policy makers should take into consideration. Our aim was to highlight this as a concern, in line with other research covered in the Background.

6. we have included more images reflecting the rich ethnographic seam of data.

7. we have provided new supplementary data to frame the wider research project.

8. this is a scientifically framed critique of narrative data - see comments above.

 

Mino Comments

1. abstract  is reframed (see above)

2. we have reduced the key words accordingly and agree with the lack of focus 

3. we give clearer guidance of technocratic environmentalism with references

4. revised figure

5. punctuation corrected

6. text tidied up

7. references are updated.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A brief summary:

This MS by Thomas examines how such tensions unfold at Câr-y-Môr, a unique ecological model of a community-owned regenerative ocean farm on the Pembrokeshire coast. Using a transdisciplinary, humanities-informed approach that foregrounds situated knowledge and lived experience, the paper contributes to debates in political ecology and environmental anthropology by showing how governance systems constrain grassroots innovation and shape what forms of sustainability are made possible, visible, or legitimate.

 

• General concept comments.

Overall, I thought this paper was more likely a review rather than Article. Because there is no any experiment, data analysis, results, and the most discussion sections do not cite references but rather someone's words. I think this is very imprecise in a SCI paper, especially as an article. Therefore, I don't think this paper meets the standards of SCI for publication, but it is more suitable as a general popularization article.

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for their comments but strongly feel that they misunderstand our objectives and the methodology used, namely transdisciplinary humanities-inclusive approach (cf. Kaiser and Gluckman 2022) being advocated here and in particular the qualitative rather than quantitative nature of humanities research.

Our article seeks to highlight the value of the embodied knowledge of people who do not get heard because their expertise is considered irrelevant by environmental scientists and policy makers. We present the results of research that were collected using a well established anthropological methodology of participant observation to collect narratives based on people's lived experience. 

We have made this clearer in our abstract: which has been reworked to emphasise the importance of the Transdisciplinary sustainability science (an approach actively endorsed by UNESCO). We have also reframed our discussion of our methodology outlining the basics of transdisciplinarity and participant observation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have produced an impressive paper on the bureaucratic obstacles to the development of community regenerative aquaculture in Câr-y-Môr, Pembrokeshire, Wales. Your analysis of the contrast between the top-down, rationalist, positivist scientific, inflexible, prescriptive, formulaic, standardised, didactic approach adopted by the licence and grant-awarding bureaucrats and the bottom-up, experiential, traditional knowledge-based, communal, mutualist, relational, flexible, improvisational, adaptive approach adopted by the aquaculture workers is first class – clear, well-written, coherent and convincing.  Your conclusion that the bureaucratic system should adapt to the community system, not the other way around: –

 

“The farm shows that regenerative transformation depends not only on ecological restoration, but on institutional reorientation. If community-led sustainability is to thrive, it must be supported by systems that do more than acknowledge alternative knowledge. It is licensing, funding and policy systems that must adapt to accommodate these practices, not the other way around” (lines 471-476)   

 

-is equally compelling.

 

However, I have two concerns. First, your paper is too one-sided. I believe the best way to argue for a viewpoint is to present the strongest possible case for opposition to that viewpoint and then demolish that case. I don’t think you have shown the strength of the bureaucratic case. I know personally a senior scientific member of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and he is a man of immense moral integrity and emotional intelligence who does not have a blind faith in positivist science. You seem to have embedded yourselves in the Câr-y-Môr community fish-farm, but you do not appear to have contacted the bureaucrats for their side of the story. Can you do so to counter the impression that you are too biased and fighting a caricatured enemy or straw man? 

 

Second, can you tell us whether Wales is unique in its ultra-bureaucratic approach to regenerative community aquaculture? How do other authorities in the UK and elsewhere deal with this issue?   

 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comments which have been really helpful.

We have revised our discussion of our methodology emphasising the need to listen to real-world experts on the ground and to allow their voices (often unheard) to shine through. However, we took on board your valuable observations about embedding some feedback from NRW. We have been engaged in discussion with them with regards to our three case studies and have embedded some of their viewpoints in the article. However, we have maintained a strong focus on the voice of our societal partners at Carymor, which for us is the unique contribution that this article is making.

We have contextualised the aquaculture at Car-y-Mor against other examples of aquaculture but have not extended the discussion into whether these small business are experiencing similar bureaucratic, legislative problems as this lies outside our own personal knowledge and evidence base. We hope that by highlighting these issues in respect to our own case study it might enable a wider discussion of such issues in other places.