Kristen Ounanian

Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy

The concept of regionalisation, as it has been employed in connection with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is both ambiguous and multidimensional in the sense that it can have different meanings to different people and subsumes several discussions under one heading. Similarly, the perceived benefits of regionalisation can vary. In this article we develop a conceptual framework, which allows structuring of different, perceived benefits of regionalisation according to various objectives of CFP governance, as well as disentangling the different sub-themes that the discussion of regionalisation subsumes: the questions of ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘whom’. Eventually, we present a suite of five different models of regionalisation—‘archetypes’—that we believe are representations of important perspectives on what regionalisation means in practice and might facilitate a structured discussion of where the European Union should be heading in relation to fisheries governance: ‘Nationalisation’, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Marine Management Organisations’, and ‘Cooperative Member State Councils’.

The Regional Advisory Councils’ current capacities and unforeseen benefits

The 2002 Common Fisheries Policy (cfp) reform introduced the Regional Advisory Councils (rac s) to enhance stakeholder involvement and correct one of the policy’s primary deficiencies, its lack of legitimacy, arising in part from low stakeholder involvement. While some criticize the 2002 reform as not going far enough to alleviate problems of lagging process and content legitimacy, in certain ways the rac s may be thought of as representing an interim institutional stage, facilitating better information sharing and cultivating stakeholder relationships. Based on a survey of rac participants, this paper illuminates the current capacities and functions of the rac s. The paper reveals that the rac s possess additional—often not sufficiently recognised—roles and values to the advice they produce as they facilitate understanding across and within sectors and interest groups and act as key purveyors of information. Additionally, the findings indicate that among those participating in the rac s, there are varying degrees of feelings of impact. Some participants recognize a positive change in EU fisheries governance, whereas others are sceptical of purported improvements.

What does ‘regionalisation’ mean? An exploratory mapping of opinions on reform of the common fisheries policy

Regionalisation has in recent years been intensely discussed as a possible path for the future Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. However, the motivations for moving in this direction are as varied as the perceptions of what regionalisation as a mode governance would entail in practice. To draw implications for policy, we explore these perceptions and seek, by means of interviews and a survey of participants in the Regional Advisory Councils with hands-on experience in regional cooperation in European fisheries management, to flesh out the question whether regionalisation is seen a good idea, why or why not, and how people perceive different models of regionalisation. The article documents and substantiates the widespread interest in regionalisation, but it also highlights the need to develop common understandings of which options of regionalisation are available and what they offer in terms of future benefits and challenges.

Governing marine restoration: the role of discourses and uncertainties

Governing marine environments has evolved from dominant interests in exploitation, allocation, conservation, and protection to restoration. Compared to terrestrial and freshwater environments, restoration of and in marine ecosystems presents a new mode of intervention with both technical and governance challenges. This paper aims to enhance understanding of the important factors at play in governing marine ecosystem restoration. Discourses of marine ecosystem restoration are an important factor which shape how the restoration activity is governed, as discourses structure how actors and coalitions define problems and their approaches to solutions. The article produces a conceptual model of the discourses of marine ecosystem restoration, built on two dimensions: (1) the degree of human intervention and (2) motivations for restoration. Together, these dimensions create four broad restoration discourses: “Putting Nature First,” “Bringing Nature Back,” “Helping Nature support Humans,” and “Building with Nature.” Moreover, marine ecosystem restoration is confronted with different forms of uncertainty, such as incomplete knowledge, unpredictability, and ambiguity, which must be managed by actors participating in restoration initiatives. The articles overall contribution is the synthesis of these components, which illuminates the specific governance challenges under various circumstances.

Not a ‘museum town’: discussions of authenticity in coastal Denmark

ABSTRACT This article investigates community perceptions of authenticity in connection to the fishing and tourism sectors and the relationships therein. Inspired by fieldwork in three Danish coastal communities, the article attends to discussions on fishing, tourism, and change, in which residents referred to ‘museum’ or ‘museum town’ as shorthand for an undesirable transformation. The article answers: (1) what are the underlying concerns of becoming a ‘museum town?’ and (2) how is authenticity employed by community members in connection to desirable and undesirable outcomes of transition? The analysis probes the ‘museum town’ expression as a means to understand host communities’ relationship to the fishing and tourism sectors and their expressed interest toward authenticity. Empirical material from semistructured interviews and ethnographic field observations initiates the thematic analysis, which then continues with a theoretical reflection on authenticity. Coastal community members understood authenticity through demonstrations of realness, waterfront and community activity, and a desired independence for the fishing industry. Being authentic required a working fleet, which carried deeper implications for transformation and the complementarity of tourism, as opposed to its suitability as a substitute for the fishing industry. Calls for the fishing industry to remain independent highlight the importance for cross-sector dialogue for local development.

Wither the Waterfront: Does the United States Need Federal Legislation to Preserve Working Waterfronts?

This article reviews legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives during four consecutive Congresses concerning the issues faced by working waterfronts. The objective of this article is to examine two working waterfronts bills, together with relevant testimony before two House subcommittee hearings, and to assess whether the proposed legislation is redundant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and whether federal-level legislation is appropriate for addressing the identified issues. Contained in three sections the article provides: (1) an assessment of the challenges facing working waterfronts, (2) a description of the federal legislation proposed to address the issues, and (3) an analysis of whether the CZMA already provides the legislative authority to take needed actions. The article concludes with a discussion of how to address working waterfront issues within the context of the federal system of government.