In 2020, the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food launched a new state-led ecolabelling scheme for fish originating from small-scale, 'low-environmental-impact' fisheries; "Nature-friendly". The label was introduced to a domestic market where the vast majority of the fish landed by Danish vessels was already certified by the global leader in certification of (wild caught) fish products, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). MSC's high market penetration created a situation where especially small-scale fishermen felt that MSC certification had developed into a market norm without providing fishermen the benefits of demonstrating extraordinarily sustainable practices and thereby gaining competitive advantages. Rather, MSC's market penetration was perceived as undermining efforts to brand and market fish originating from small-scale fisheries as particularly sustainable. This article explores the processes that led up to the NaturSkånsom labeling scheme by applying a 'power in planning and policy framework' as an analytical lens. Through the NaturSkånsom process, the article investigates what happens when an ecolabel becomes a market norm, how small-scale fisheries actors who feel disadvantaged by such a development and environmental organizations form alliances, mobilize support and multiple resources to strengthen their positions in the political settings. The examination of this case highlights how stakeholders traditionally thought of as less resourceful can gain political influence. The article offers a glimpse into a possible, emerging future where those who perceive themselves as the most sustainable producers may increasingly view large and dominating ecolabels simultaneously as obstacles and forces for positive change.
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.
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.
In this report, the PrimeFish project provides an overview of the European and especially the EU seafood sector in the context of global development; i.e. development in other continents with a focus on large commodity groups for fisheries and aquaculture.
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 ‘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.
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.
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.
Rigid fisheries management frameworks often leave fishermen with limited possibilities and incentives to adjust the selectivity of their gears to the specific fishing conditions. Implementation of the landing obligation in European fisheries emphasizes fishermen's need for flexibility in which gear to use to be able to match the selectivity of the gear to the quota available. How fishermen can play an important role in facilitating a more regionalised and flexible technical regulation by actively participating in the development of gears and contributing to the scientific documentation of their selectivity is discussed. Perspectives in the proposed technical regulation for EU fisheries and the regionalization in the 2013 Common Fisheries Policy are discussed based on an analysis of the current EU technical regulation. Then a new pathway to address the problem, currently being trialled in Danish fisheries, is discussed. Throughout the article, three themes are discussed: Identifying gear needs, development and testing of gear with fishermen as central actors; how the selectivity of the gear should be documented; and opportunities for faster evaluation of new gear, following the regionalization of the technical measure regulation. The paper concludes that a more flexible system of gear development and evaluation is possible by a) involvement of fishermen in proposing gear adjustments, self-sampling and documenting results following scientific protocols and evaluation, testing a range of designs before scientific testing, and b) open for faster approval of gear use under a regionalized technical regulation regime with annual adjustments of management plans containing the technical regulation.
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.