While European policies have progressed towards an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM), limited attention has been paid to the implications for its advisory system. This paper analyzes the advisory landscape in the European Union (EU) by addressing two questions: to what extent can the needed advice be provided? how prepared is the management system to integrate ecosystem advice? We provide a systematic analysis of the relevant advisory bodies, explore gaps related to the requested and delivered advice, and identify paths for improvement. The findings confirm earlier observations of lack of a formalized process to provide and integrate advice in support of an ecosystem approach into EU fisheries management. Instead of enabling existing capacities to embed ecosystem components (eg investments and initiatives made by stakeholders (and authorities) to move to EAFM -pushing strategies), the system relies heavily on mandatory requests from policy makers (pulling mechanisms). Furthermore, social and economic dimensions are the weakest aspects in the advisory process, which hampers the balancing of objectives that represent one of the hallmarks of EAFM. The policy framework has adopted EAFM for European fisheries, but the advisory processes have not yet been adapted to substantially support EAFM.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) occupies a central role in the advice system to support the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) in the European Union (EU). Despite improvements, its capacity to deliver ecosystem advice seems to be far from a fully functional operational framework. To what extent availability of appropriate scientific advice is a barrier for a more widespread use of an EAFM in Europe remains an open question. Building on the findings of a large research project, this article explores what advice ICES can provide. The article concludes that: (i) ICES has taken a leading role in generating an EAFM framework in which management decisions can operate; (ii) the advice “suppliers” and the advice “users” agree on the feasibility of using existing knowledge to “do EAFM now”; (iii) ICES can address a range of shortcomings, but some of the present bottlenecks demand concerted action between the advisory system and the political realm. The implementation of an EAFM requires consistency between science and management. ICES appears as well-suited to facilitate the dialogue on applying an EAFM in the EU, but it is unrealistic to expect ICES to produce all the answers.
This article deals with the implementation of ecosystem-based marine management in the Baltic Sea. It explores and documents in particular the preliminary lessons from environmental and fisheries management with reference to the Helsinki Commission Group for implementation of the ecosystem approach and the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum, both examples of regionalization processes in order to implement ecosystem-based marine management. The Helsinki Commission Group for implementation of the ecosystem approach is a joint management body for the implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and the European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum is a new governing body to facilitate regional cooperation in fisheries management. The aim of the article is twofold: a) to describe and discuss two different pathways of regionalization in the Baltic Sea and b) to explore how these forms of regionalization could contribute to the implementation of governance structures needed to implement ecosystem-based marine management at the level of a regional sea – efficiently, legitimately and effectively. We conclude that a nested governance structure could be developed by building upon existing institutions while learning from new initiatives to organize stakeholder involvement.