Troels Jacob Hegland

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’.

Recovery Plans and the Balancing of Fishing Capacity and Fishing Possibilities: Path Dependence in the Common Fisheries Policy

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the European Union (EU) has for long been accused of being unable to provide sustainable fisheries or actually in itself being an obstacle to this. Not least the inability of the CFP to achieve a sustainable balance between available resources and fishing capacity has been an issue of debate. By looking at the historical development of the implementation of the structural and conservation policies, this chapter sets out to provide an understanding of why the EU has for long been unable to choose another course in its fisheries policy. A key aspect in relation to this is the path dependence of the system, which has to a great extent made any real reform attempts unsuccessful. Nevertheless, based on recent changes in relation to the political cleavages between member states and the outcome of the CFP reform of 2002, the chapter describes how the evermore present resource crisis has opened a window-of-opportunity which makes a change in course possible. This is to some extent evidenced by the adoption of a series of recovery plans. Whether this will be enough to provide for a bright future of the CFP is, however, questionable.

Introduction: regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy

The idea of putting together a special issue of MAST on the issue of regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), was born in late 2010. Having participated in an EU funded research project looking into how an eco-system based approach to fisheries management could be operationalised in the European Union (EU) with particular focus on regionalisation, we found that the coming reform of the CFP would be a good opportunity to make a substantial contribution on the topic of regionalisation, which we felt ought to be a central component of the reform discussions.

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.

The Politics of Implementation in Resource Conservation: Comparing the EU/Denmark and Norway

This chapter discusses implementation as a policy instrument in terms of fishery resource conservation. Implementation is primarily a means of pursuing established political goals. However, it is also a potential means of deliberate subversion or change of political goals. The chapter describes the development of multiple goals in fisheries management and addresses mechanisms through which conservation goals are subverted or changed at the implementation stage. Through comparison between The EU/Denmark and Norway, the chapter identifies factors that promote and prevent subversion of conservation goals during implementation.

Regionalisation - what will the future bring?

It is the contention of this special issue that regionalisation, in the sense of focusing important aspects of governance on the scale of marine eco-regions, can make a valuable contribution to the reform of the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy (cfp). Despite recent trials and tribulations associated with the current reforms, we remain firmly convinced of the merits of reforming the cfp around a process of devolving detailed, technical decision-making to some form of collective organisation of member states working together at the level of the regional sea. We remain hopeful that something more substantive will prevail by the end of 2012, perhaps in the form of non-statutory regional governance structures capable of implementing Community policy in a regionally sensitive and practical way. Though we believe that regional management is inevitable if the cfp is eventually to deliver sustainable fisheries, we acknowledge that in reality regionalising the cfp was always likely to proceed incrementally.

The Icelandic ITQ System

The fisheries sector is tremendously important for Iceland: the export of fish products accounts for a large part of the value of exported goods. Fisheries policy in Iceland is, consequently, of national importance to a degree that is not comparable to any of the EU member states. Demersal fish species (including cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), saithe (Pollachius virens), redfish (Sebastes spp.) and Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides)), flatfish and shellfish constitute almost 80% of the value of landings even though around 70% of the total volume of landings is constituted by pelagic species. Cod, which is mainly caught in the Icelanders’ own exclusive economic zone, is the economically most important fish.

Implementation Politics: the Case of Denmark Under the Common Fisheries Policy

Denmark is among the more loyal European Union (EU) member states when it comes to national implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). However, even in Denmark several mechanisms contribute to sub-optimal implementation of the CFP. Looking at implementation problems for a relatively loyal member state, this chapter sheds critical light on national implementation of the CFP in the EU as a whole. The chapter initially provides a description of the institutional set-up for fisheries policy-making and implementation in Denmark, including a short historical account of the development of the Danish fisheries and their management since 1983. Subsequently, the chapter provides an understanding of the mechanisms and processes behind the Danish implementation of fisheries policy, arguing that these mechanisms and processes have led to a situation where the goals agreed at the EU level are supplemented or even replaced by national priorities. The chapter concludes that in order to capture the domestic politics associated with CFP implementation in Denmark, it is important to understand the policy process as a synergistic interaction between dominant interests, policy alliances/networks and prevailing discourses. The inability of the EU to ensure that the conservation goals agreed at the EU level are loyally pursued during national implementation is one of the reasons why the EU has been struggling to keep fishing mortality rates at a sustainable level.

Factors behind increasing ocean use: the IPAT equation and the marine environment

This chapter provides an introduction to the main factors behind increasing ocean use, which—more often than not—tend to lead to increasing pressure on the marine environment. In this way, it aims on a very general level to account for the root causes of the different developments that have led to the need for specific management and governance intended to protect the marine environment. With reference to a few selected examples related to fishing, which is one of the main anthropogenic stressors of the marine environment, it is illustrated how increasing ocean use—and associated pressure on the marine environment—can be seen as rooted in a combination of increasing population and human development. In doing so, the chapter departs from the IPAT equation, which is a classic way to explain changes in the environmental impacts of human activities as a product of three factors: population, affluence and technology.