A communicative turnaround: Shifting the burden of proof in European fisheries governance

Current and prospective changes in European fisheries governance suggest not only a “communicative turn” but a complete turnaround in the relationships between government, science, and the fishing industry. At the heart of these changes are the so-called Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and the idea of partially replacing the burden of proof on the resource users (fishing industry). This change entails new forms of interaction between fishers’ representatives, other stakeholders (e.g. NGOs), policy-makers and scientists. By drawing on experiences from the Baltic Sea RAC, the analysis focuses on two aspects of fisheries governance: institutional design and the process of negotiation and decision-making. It is concluded that to allow for a partial shift in the burden of proof, stakeholder organisations such as RACs need to adapt both institutionally as well as process-wise to enable a more constructive and responsible fisheries governance system.     

The changing environment of fisheries policy in Europe

This paper presents how environmental concerns emanating outside the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) are increasingly setting the stage for EU fisheries management. This is illustrated via what is termed the exogenous entrance of environmental concerns through the implementation of directives in EU policy. More endogenous entrance of environmental concerns occurs via stakeholder participation in Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) as well as market mechanisms, such as ecolabelling and traceability. This study discusses how these latter channels of environmental concern may have become a more potent and efficient way of reaching environmental goals, outside of the primacy of the CFP.     

Is Europe ready for a results-based approach to fisheries management? The voice of stakeholders

The reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), adopted by the European Union in 2013, aims to achieve sustainable exploitation of marine resources. Beyond the mainstream of stakeholders׳ engagement, the literature increasingly calls for shared accountability in fisheries management. In such scenarios, identifying stakeholders׳ insights becomes critical for a successful design of innovative management approaches. This paper analyses how the stakeholders perceive a results-based management system for four fisheries in different European sea-basins as well as at a pan-European level. The results indicate a need for adaptive and participatory management approaches, building on regional adaptations within transparent and plural frameworks for fisheries. To succeed, the system should explicitly address its associated public and private costs; neither participation nor accountability comes for free.     

Good luck or good governance? The recovery of Celtic Sea herring

The herring stock in the Celtic Sea collapsed in 2004. The stock is managed under the European Union's (EU) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), but with a large measure of local stakeholder involvement through the Pelagic Advisory Council and a local Irish stakeholder committee. An iterative process, initiated by the local committee culminated in a formal rebuilding plan, which ran until 2012, by which time, the stock had fully recovered. Subsequent analyses of stock development over this period suggest that the stock was already recovering by the time the final plan was implemented. Did the stock rebuild by good fortune or did the governance measures put in place achieve their aims? This question is answered by way of examination of stock trends over time, analyses of the main elements of the rebuilding measures, including a management strategy evaluation (MSE) along with analyses of the legal and institutional arrangements in Ireland and in the EU CFP, including the development of the Pelagic Advisory Council. Important innovations in the CFP are revealed as having been crucial for the rebuilding process.     

Stakeholder participation in the management of North East Atlantic pelagic fish stocks: The future role of the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council in a reformed CFP

When the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) were created during the last reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2002, it was recognised that in addition to the five geographically orientated stakeholder lead advisory bodies, a separate RAC dedicated exclusively to pelagic fisheries was needed because of it being so distinctly different from other fisheries. Pelagic fishing is different mostly due to the fact that the targeted fish species behave in a unique manner by grouping in schools in mid-water unlike other commercially targeted fishes, which typically reside on or near the ocean floor. For this reason, as well as the fact that they are usually widely distributed, researching and managing this dynamic group of fishes across the borders of many countries requires a unique approach. Fortunately, despite these complexities, policy makers have succeeded to establish a reasonably well functioning management framework, which has lead to the situation that most pelagic fish stocks are harvested biologically sustainable. While a majority of Europe's fish stocks still need rebuilding, and the main aim accordingly is to reduce fishing mortality, the current focus for pelagic fish stocks is to improve the performance of already implemented Long Term Management plans in terms of their biological as well as social and economical objectives. This paper reflects upon experiences of the Pelagic Regional Advisory Council (PRAC) in its role as advisor to the EU institutions. Subsequently, in the context of ideas presented in the European Commission's Green paper, the authors discuss the future of the PRAC and conclude that its main development potential lies not with the current EU's CFP reform, but rather should be sought in a wider international context.     

Stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management decision-making process: Fishers’ perceptions of participation

Public participation is a key ingredient of good governance and there are many advantages of involving stakeholders in the decision-making process. The European Commission identified the lack of stakeholder involvement as one of the major weaknesses of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). As such, the 2002 Reform of the CFP aimed to improve its system of governance by increasing the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Over the last decade, Scottish inshore waters have seen an increase in management measures focused on involving fishers, delegating responsibilities and decentralizing management. The present document investigates commercial inshore fishers’ perceptions of participation in the decision-making process and attitudes towards a new management regime – the Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) – which aims to increase participation in and decentralization of inshore fisheries management. A survey was conducted, through face-to-face interviews, and ordered logistic and multiple regression models created to identify which characteristics influence fishers’ perceptions and attitudes. The present analysis concluded that, 5 years subsequent to the reform of the CFP, the majority of inshore fishers perceive themselves not to be consulted or involved in the decision-making process. However, and despite the fact that fishers are not completely certain of the potential of the IFGs to increase their participation in the management process, they have an overall positive attitude towards their implementation.     

The 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy's system of governance—rhetoric or reality?

The 2002 Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was claimed to be a radical overhaul of a failing system. Several EU fish stocks—particularly North Sea cod—had reached dangerously low levels, and there was widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which the CFP was operating. The European Commission took the opportunity of the legal requirement to review some features of the CFP (principally access provisions) in 2002, to undertake a broader reappraisal of the CFP. One of the features of this reappraisal was an attempt to improve the CFP's system of governance by increasing the amount of stakeholder participation, decentralisation, transparency, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. In this paper, the conclusion is reached that this attempt to improve the quality of governance in the 2002 CFP reform package has been more rhetorical than real.     

Fishing for opinions: Stakeholder views on MSFD implementation in European Seas

Stakeholder participation is vital when introducing and implementing ecosystem-based management (EBM) at any scale. This paper presents the results of a survey covering four European Regional Seas (Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North-East Atlantic Ocean) aimed to collect stakeholders׳ perspectives on their Regional Sea governance to implement the European Union (EU) Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In this survey, drivers of good governance including stakeholder involvement, willingness and capacity to cooperate, efficiency, institutional ambiguity and decision-making were explored. The results indicate a clear gap in perception between the current, the ideal and the foreseen situation regarding the implementation of the MSFD. The preferences for the future governance structures vary between stakeholders and across seas although some similarities can be found. Based on the results of the survey, this paper concludes that tailor-made rather than off-the-shelf solutions will be needed to accommodate regional cooperation in the European marine environment for implementing ecosystem-based management under the MSFD.     

Regional cooperation for European seas: Governance models in support of the implementation of the MSFD

During the implementation process of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Member States are expected to cooperate and coordinate at the regional sea level as wells as arrange stakeholder involvement. However, the MSFD does not specify any governing structures to do so. The aim of this paper is to address these key challenges of the MSFD by developing four governance models for regional cooperation and assess their impact on governance performance. The four models are based on the building blocks of stakeholder involvement (low or high) and decision-making power (binding or non-binding decisions): (1) Cross-border platforms; (2) Regional Sea Convention-PLUS; (3) Advisory Alliance and (4) Regional Sea Assembly. Secondly, the paper will do an ex ante assessment on how the alternative models will have an impact on governance performance. The assessment criteria for governance performance are: (a) costs to set up and run a model; (b) capacity to cooperate; (c) policy coordination; (d) institutional ambiguity; and (e) implementation drift. In addition to this assessment of the performance based on expert judgement (i.e. scientists of WP7 of the ODEMM project), 4 roundtable discussions have been undertaken in which stakeholders from the four regional seas did an assessment of the four models. The main conclusion is that increasing stakeholder participation, a much desired development in regional organisation of marine management as expressed by the stakeholder community, will increase the costs of the policy making process. If stakeholder participation is not embedded in a wider institutional setting in which the participation of stakeholders is directly related to the policy process and the degree to which decisions taken are binding, the increase of costs does not lead to a more smoothly running model.     

Incentives,social–ecological feedbacks and European fisheries

The European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has failed to deliver on social, economic and ecological goals. This failure is in part the result of a number of social–ecological feedback mechanisms. The policy is currently undergoing reform, with unknown practical outcomes. Here, relatively successful fisheries policies outside the European Union are reviewed. Through interviews and workshops with scientists, managers and other stakeholders, complemented with literature reviews, practices that can create incentives for long-term sustainability are investigated. The focus is on how the provision of clear and trusted scientific evidence can stimulate defensible decisions, in turn creating incentives for compliance, leading to positive social–ecological outcomes. Despite differences between Europe and the investigated case studies, the prospects of an increased regionalization within the European CFP provides the best starting point for implementing best practice identified in this study.     

Is there a need for a new governance model for regionalised Fisheries Management? Implications for science and advice

Over the years, the breadth and depth of EU marine policy has increased with revisions of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and new legislation like the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and the Framework for Marine Spatial Planning Directive in Europe (FMSP). Not only do these different policies have different remits and hence scope, they also present a multitude of modes of implementation. Although the CFP and MSFD have many common goals when it comes to conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources, they differ substantially in governance set up and implementation modalities, including the underlying scientific advisory processes and structures. Regional cooperation and coordination is foreseen, but there is no governance model in place to coordinate requests for scientific advice, nor institutions coordinating the activities of advice providers, either across policies or across regions. This results in an increase in uncoordinated requests for scientific advice yet the pool of experts fuelling the advisory system is limited. As a result the European marine scientific advisory system is increasingly under pressure. In this paper the consequences of this problem are analysed and a redesign of the institutional governance setting to accommodate these challenges and make the science and advice system ready for the future is explored.     

‘The Hare and the Tortoise’: Lessons from Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea governance

Commonly, the Baltic Sea is pictured as a proactive region with a long-standing tradition for cooperation and surrounded by the “greenest” EU countries. In contrast, southern countries often suffer from the “Mediterranean Syndrome” in which the heterogenous socio political situation is given as the “proof” that cooperation would not work. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive adopted by European Union in 2008 is an important step towards ecosystem-based marine management and provides a legal document suggesting marine regions as a scale for cooperation. In this paper, we aim to explore stakeholders׳ perspectives on key factors for good governance at the regional sea level covering the Eastern Baltic States and the south of France. We targeted a broad panel of professionals from different sectors with a political, economic or societal importance in the respective seas. We suggest that Baltic and Mediterranean stakeholders are going through very different stages of governance adjustment fitting the purpose of ecosystem-based marine management. Baltic institutions are well established, which in some way prevents structural analysis of whether the current governance model is the most appropriate reaching GES. In the Mediterranean, the EU strategies faces institutional challenges, which is leading stakeholders to think “out of the box” about what is really needed for implementing ecosystem-based marine management for this sea. It is suggested that a golden opportunity exists at present in the Mediterranean to create a regional platform of cooperation, not only to fit the MSFD implementation, but also to improve governance of the Mediterranean Sea and its environmental status.     

The long and bumpy journey: Taiwan׳s aquaculture development and management

This paper presents an overview of Taiwan׳s aquaculture development and management, focusing on the transition of the industry and the current management measures that particularly address environmental effects, ecolabels and diversification into tourism and ornamental fish business. Since the late 1980s when Taiwan׳s aquaculture in its heyday was pounded by emergent environmental problems, a policy was established on enhancing governance over aquaculture, in seeking to transform it towards an environmentally, economically and socially sustainable industry. The paper shows that positive outcomes have been achieved after the policy measures have been implemented over the past two decades. However, potential challenges of ongoing environmental impacts, conflicts regarding multiple sea uses, concerns on seafood safety, lack of management of “black” farms, low market penetration of ecolabeled products and lack of participative management were identified. It argues for the need to encourage ICZM programs to solve sea use conflicts and minimize environmental impacts, reduce “black farms” to fill the management gap, enhance market shares of ecolabeled products and a transition to a more participative mode of governance.     

Governance strengths and weaknesses to implement the marine strategy framework directive in European waters

The ambitious Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) has been the focus of much marine research across Europe in the pursuit of achieving Good Environmental Status in the four European Union marine regions; Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North-east Atlantic. This research addresses the Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) of the current European marine governance structures and its relationship to implement the MSFD. Results of the SWOT analysis were acquired through a combination of approaches with MSFD experts and stakeholders including: 30 face-to-face interviews, an online survey with 264 stakeholder respondents and focus groups within each European marine region. The SWOT analysis concurrently identifies common strengths and weakness and key governance issues for implementing the MSFD for European marine regions. This paper forms one assessment within the governance component of the Options for Delivering Ecosystem Based Marine Management (ODEMM) project and presents timely issues that can be of benefit to national and European Union policy makers.     

Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research

Despite knowledge-brokering being of high interest to public policy, there is a lack of research integrating the knowledge of stakeholders and scientists, principally because public policies remain viewed as top-down controlled. To help European research policies make a positive difference to society, there is a need to better engage stakeholders with the delivery of research and to demonstrate an impact and value that it brings. The pertinent question addressed by this communication is: how can a deeper and more systematic engagement of stakeholders be enabled through European research activities? Enabling stakeholder participation in European research activities requires there to be an incentive for researchers and stakeholders to engage, and the capacity of stakeholders to operate effectively in the research framework. Unsurprisingly, the establishment of communications and cultures conducive to shared problem solving is high priority, as is the need to work towards a governance structure that helps link research with policy outcomes, while at the same time resonating directly with stakeholders. The Regional Advisory Councils could be a strong force in bringing stakeholders knowledge to bear on the scientific issues relevant to management, but their strategy and capacity to mobilise the skills to do so are not yet ready.     

Japan׳s whaling following the International Court of Justice ruling: Brave New World – Or business as usual?

Since 1987, Japan has conducted extensive special permit whaling (“scientific whaling”) in the Antarctic and North Pacific. This has been viewed by many as a way to circumvent the International Whaling Commission׳s (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling, which was implemented in 1985. Recently, Australia took Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over this issue. Using various criteria, the Court ruled that Japan׳s whaling was not “for purposes of scientific research” as required by Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and ordered Japan to immediately cease its JARPA II whaling program in the Antarctic. Despite optimism that the Court׳s ruling might spell the end of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic and even elsewhere, Japan has indicated that it will redesign its whaling programs and continue operations. Based upon Japan׳s history at the IWC, I argue here that this was an expected outcome; I predict the course of events over the next months, and suggest that the ICJ ruling, while satisfying as an independent vindication of Japan׳s critics, represents little more than a temporary setback for that nation׳s whaling enterprise.     

Changing maritime scenarios. The geopolitical dimension of the EU Atlantic Strategy

The European Union׳s Integrated Maritime Policy (EU IMP) is being developed in the framework of a process that is reshaping maritime geographical scenarios and world geopolitics. This process is characterised by a change in States׳ territoriality resulting from their jurisdictional expansion. Over 60% of coastal States in the world possess territory with a more extensive maritime component than the terrestrial component which helps to reaffirm the fragmentation of maritime space and stresses the national vision of the oceans. Unlike the process of ocean space fragmentation that results from its nationalisation the EU Integrated Maritime Policy has a global and cooperative vision, which is particularly evident in the Atlantic Strategy. In this context, this article aims to: (i) provide a first estimate of the size and extent of the territorial changes resulting from jurisdictional claims available to date and their mapping; (ii) consider the case of the European Union as one of special significance with its express policy of maritime spatial projection. The conclusions point to a redefinition of the large territorial pieces of the global geopolitics puzzle and the emergence of a new Atlanticism associated with the EU׳s maritime policy.     

Marine governance in an industrialised ocean: A case study of the emerging marine renewable energy industry

The world׳s oceans are currently undergoing an unprecedented period of industrialisation, made possible by advances in technology and driven by our growing need for food, energy and resources. This is placing the oceans are under intense pressure, and the ability of existing marine governance frameworks to sustainably manage the marine environment is increasingly being called into question. Emerging industries are challenging all aspects of these frameworks, raising questions regarding ownership and rights of the sea and its resources, management of environmental impacts, and management of ocean space. This paper uses the emerging marine renewable energy (MRE) industry, particularly in the United Kingdom (UK), as a case study to introduce and explore some of the key challenges. The paper concludes that the challenges are likely to be extensive and argues for development of a comprehensive legal research agenda to advance both MRE technologies and marine governance frameworks.     

Distribution of the burden of fisheries regulations in Europe: The north/south divide

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a priority area of the European Union's Better Regulation agenda. Understanding the spatial variation in the application of the policy and the reasons behind these differences would provide insights into policy making in different socioeconomic and cultural settings that will assist in better regulation. The CFP aqcuis (the body of European Union law accumulated thus far) was analysed by creating a database composed of pre-defined elements from each obligation. Distinct differences are apparent in the ‘burden’ imposed by regulations in the Northern and Southern waters. However, a combination of a timeline of fish landings and the accumulation of the CFP regulations shows that despite the increase in the number of regulations this has not led to the anticipated reduction in landings. Historical, biological and geopolitical differences between the two major marine regions of the EU are discussed in terms of the impact they have had on the formation of the different fisheries management models in the different regions. Finally, the elements forming these models are discussed in terms of successes and failures in the context of the 2012 CFP reform.