This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onwards. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over‐capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) the EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.
The implementation of marine spatial plans as required by the Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) of the European Union (EU) poses novel demands for the development of decision support tools (DST). One fundamental aspect is the need for tools to guide decisions about the allocation of human activities at sea in ways that are ecosystem-based and lead to sustainable use of resources. The MSP Directive was the main driver behind the development of spatial and non-spatial DSTs for the analysis of marine and coastal areas across European seas. In this research we develop an analytical framework designed by DST software developers and managers for the analysis of six DSTs supporting MSP in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea. The framework compares the main conceptual, technical and practical aspects, by which these DSTs contribute to advancing the MSP knowledge base and identified future needs for the development of the tools. Results show that all of the studied DSTs include elements to support ecosystem-based management at different geographical scales (from national to macro-regional), relying on cumulative effects assessment and functionalities to facilitate communication at the science-policy interface. Based on our synthesis we propose a set of recommendations for knowledge exchange in relation to further DST developments, mechanisms for sharing experience among the user-developer community, and actions to increase the effectiveness of the DSTs in MSP processes.
ABSTRACT: This article reviews early experiences with what is commonly referred to as 'regionalisation'. Initially, the article briefly recalls the shortcomings of the traditional, highly centralized governance structure of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union, for which regionalization was widely perceived as a solution, while at the same time providing an overview of the policy processes and various inputs that led to the provisions of recent regulation. Subsequently, the article presents empirical experiences related to the actual implementation and performance of the regional structures in the North and Baltic Seas and discusses the extent to which the adopted model of regionalization is appropriate in light of the objectives it was intended to advance. Finally, the article offers some scenarios of possible 'futures' of the regional structures.
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.
There is an increasing pressure on the fisheries to avoid bycatch and discards. In the EU this is seen in landing obligations in the new Common Fisheries Policy. The European fisheries are thus under pressure to be highly selective both in adjusting catches to the individual or collective quota combinations and to be size selective in order to optimize the economic outcome of the available quota. This paper proposes a strategy of time-place selectivity by sharing real-time data and information between vessels about areas with high abundance of unwanted species and sizes (hotspots). The paper examines use of time-place regulation, risks/benefits of sharing knowledge and experiences from a previous real-time information sharing system as a basis for developing the four models for fisher's sharing of information. The models differ with respect to data and information collection methods, who owns and accesses the data and hotspot warnings. The models are tested through a discussion of the possible application of the models in the context of the nephrops trawl fishery in Kattegat and Skagerrak. Based on this the models are proposed as possible tools for the fishing industry and managers when adjusted to specific local conditions, and a recommendation for policy support of development of information sharing systems is outlined.
This paper discusses the governance of port classification through the lens of multi-level governance theory, with a particular focus on the Port of Aalborg and the issue of classification of Limfjord waters, in Denmark. The study identifies a conflict in which national governmental decisions regarding the classification of navigable waterways obstruct the port's access to funding opportunities. Despite the port's autonomous operational capacity, national control over waterway classification and port typology shows a nested governance dynamic, thereby highlighting the intricacies of the European Union's subsidiarity principle. This paper argues that the case illustrates how the classification of inland waterways, although ostensibly legal, is intrinsically political and subject to national interests. The Danish government's refusal to designate the Limfjord as a navigable waterway potentially hinders regional development and impedes the EU's policy objectives for intermodality. Methodologically, the research synthesizes desk-based analysis with key-informant interviews to examine the legal, political, and geographical dimensions of this issue. The findings contribute to multi-level governance theory by describing the case as a hybrid model that integrates both nested and polycentric elements, thereby enriching the debate on governance complexities within the European context.
A number of solutions, with varying efficiency, have been proposed to mitigate discards. In this paper twelve mitigation measures were reviewed by their strengths and weaknesses, along with opportunities and threats, they might entail. How mitigation methods could either support or counteract others was also reviewed. The analyses of the mitigation measures are based on expert knowledge and experience and supported with existing literature. Discarding is highly variable and is influenced by numerous biological, technical and operational factors as well as social and economic drivers. These influences need to be carefully considered when designing management approaches. Finally, all reforms must be carefully considered within the context of a broader management system. The full management system needs to be thought of coherently to create an incentive framework that motivates fishers to avoid unwanted catches. It is only in this setting that discard mitigation methods may be potentially effective.
ABSTRACT: 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.
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.
The ‘port managing body (PMB)’ plays a central role in the development of the port. Public funding for investment projects of the port managing bodies is common in the EU as well as most other countries. This paper adds to the body of knowledge on port investments and financing challenges with an analysis of data from two surveys that were carried in 2018 and 2023. This analysis yields the following conclusions. First, the PMBs in the EU have shifted their investments, in response to changing investment drivers. The increasing relevance of the transition to a net-zero economy leads to a shift towards investments in projects that reduce environmental effects and/or allow private investments in new green activities such as the production of zero-emission fuels. Second, financial bottlenecks are the most important bottlenecks for the execution of the projects of PMBs. Third, the PMBs have high aspirations with regard to public funding, both on the EU and national level. Fourth, there is a difference between two types of PMBs: state-owned commercial port development companies and the public sector embedded port authorities; the latter execute less projects without public funding and are more oriented on national public funding than on EU funding. Finally, the societal value creation of the investments of PMBs is used to justify public funding aspirations. The PMBs indicate that the majority of their investments create societal value, often by enabling emission reductions and by reduced local negative externalities.