Coastal communities have ideas and plans on how to redirect the blue economy to
support thriving societies, but how can EU Member States better support bottom-up
transitions?
This is a policy brief included in D5.3 of EmpowerUs.
This report discusses the concept of governance, how to understand 'effective' governance, and a research plan for further studies of the effectiveness of and potential for improving governance at the regional and sub-regional level in the SEAwise regions (Baltic Sea, North Sea, Western Waters, and the Mediterranean Sea). The theoretical insights from the first two main parts inform and are merged into the research plan, forming the last part of the report. The work is based on the recognition that fisheries management in Europe is still struggling to deliver on its objectives relating to ecology, economy, and social considerations although improvements have been made over the last decades. On top of this, marine biodiversity and ecosystem integrity can be identified as pressing challenges, while climate change presents renewed uncertainties and risks.
Improved governance, appropriately designed for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), is key to improving the system performance towards the societal objectives. Lack of appropriate measures towards cooperation between the EU, national, and regional levels has led to uncoordinated decision-making processes and prevented coherent management through the implementation and adoption of EU legislation, leading to lower than desired performance both of fisheries and environmental policies. Referring specifically to the involvement of stakeholders, the European Commission stresses the importance of transparency, cooperation, outreach, information, and inclusiveness in developing and implementing measures to ensure that all stakeholders, not least fishermen, have a say in the management process, and that their needs and concerns are considered (European Commission, 2023a). Improvement of what can broadly be defined as 'governance' is, thus, among the pathways that the European Commission has identified for improvements in the area.
This report discusses the concept of governance, how to understand 'effective' governance, and a research plan for further studies of the effectiveness of and potential for improving governance at the regional and sub-regional level in the SEAwise regions (Baltic Sea, North Sea, Western Waters, and the Mediterranean Sea). The theoretical insights from the first two main parts inform and are merged into the research plan, forming the last part of the report. The work is based on the recognition that fisheries management in Europe is still struggling to deliver on its objectives relating to ecology, economy, and social considerations although improvements have been made over the last decades. On top of this, marine biodiversity and ecosystem integrity can be identified as pressing challenges, while climate change presents renewed uncertainties and risks.
Improved governance, appropriately designed for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), is key to improving the system performance towards the societal objectives. Lack of appropriate measures towards cooperation between the EU, national, and regional levels has led to uncoordinated decision-making processes and prevented coherent management through the implementation and adoption of EU legislation, leading to lower than desired performance both of fisheries and environmental policies. Referring specifically to the involvement of stakeholders, the European Commission stresses the importance of transparency, cooperation, outreach, information, and inclusiveness in developing and implementing measures to ensure that all stakeholders, not least fishermen, have a say in the management process, and that their needs and concerns are considered (European Commission, 2023a). Improvement of what can broadly be defined as 'governance' is, thus, among the pathways that the European Commission has identified for improvements in the area.
The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishermen, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) in their own fisheries. One of the key uncertainties in fisheries science and management can be linked to (our understanding of) fishermen's behaviour. In this report we describe the project efforts to better understand fisher behavior by assessing literature, interviews and data to advance towards a better representation of fisher behavior in our modelling. A better understanding of fisher behavior is especially needed in the context of change affecting Europe's marine ecosystems. Change is both related to the natural part of the ecosystem (ie climate change) as to the social side of the ecosystem (ie building of wind parks).
To that aim we present nine different case studies in Europe as examples of how fisher behavior has been studied and which factors are (or can be) relevant for a better understanding of fisher behaviour. Each case study ends with a table summarizing the factors influencing behaviour, the categories within that factor and the (potential) application in modeling as well as the implications for management. The table below summarizes the factors found / used in the case studies and the elements (social, cultural, ecological, economic and institutional) to which they relate. A variety of social factors were identified that are promising for use in modelling. A key conclusion is that social data are often context dependent and cannot be copy pasted from one situation to the other and in some cases, additional data needs to be collected. The cases also demonstrate that mixed methods approaches and interdisciplinary approaches are key to get in-depth understanding of fisher behavior in fisheries science.
With the blue economic sectors growing, marine macroalgae cultivation plays an important role in securing food and energy supplies, as well as better water quality in sustainable ways, whether alone or as part of a cluster solution to mitigate the effects of fish farming. While macroalgae cultivation exists in Europe, it is not that widely distributed yet; with increasing marine activities at sea, Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) needs to ensure social recognition as well as social and spatial representation for such a new marine activity. This comparative case study analysis of MSPs of three eastern Baltic Sea countries explores the levels of support for the development of macroalgae cultivation in MSP and the degree of co-location options for this new and increasingly important sector. It presents new analytical ways of incorporating co-location considerations into the concept of social sustainability. The results of this study support the harmonisation of views on co-location, propose ways of using space to benefit multiple users as well as marine ecosystems, and highlight some of the key social challenges and enablers for this sector.
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.