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.
Ship-source pollution represents a threat to the environment, regardless of where it occurs. The European Union has been developing standards that aim to counter accidental, operational and intentional pollution in the waters under its member-state's jurisdiction. However, and precisely because marine pollution knows no boundaries, the EU is not coy in contemplating what ships do beyond waters under the sovereignty of its member states. This article analyzes the international legality of EU claims to port state jurisdiction over ship-source pollution. It demonstrates that port state jurisdiction is today not only a means to ensure compliance with international standards but also a means to unilaterally enforce more stringent environmental standards.
The Faroe Islands are currently struggling to find their feet in a new context of globalization and changing international requirements on fishery management best practices, as exemplified by United Nations protocols and agreements. We introduce the Faroese fisheries effort management system for cod, haddock and saithe, which represents an innovative attempt to tackle the challenges of mixed fisheries by means of a combination of total allowable effort implemented through days-at-sea and extensive use of closed or limited access areas. Subsequently, we present and discuss controversies concerning the system's ability (or lack thereof) to achieve a level of fishing effort that produces long-term sustainability. Over the years the system has proven able to evolve and overcome challenges, and the Faroe Islands are currently considering adding a proper fisheries management plan to the system to achieve fishing at maximum sustainable yield. However, finding support for this plan presents a challenge due particularly to an enduring gap between the perspectives of scientists and actors in the catching sector. Finally, we outline some actions that could be taken to reduce the gap and hence facilitate reform of the system: 1) integration of the consultative/advisory process; 2) obtaining tailor-made advice for the Faroese effort management system from the relevant scientific body; 3) establishment of a transparent mechanism for monitoring and regulating fishing effort; 4) clarifying the effectiveness of the prevalent system of closed areas.
This article investigates recent reforms of the Greenland coastal fisheries in order to contribute to the general lessons on reform and policy networks in the context of a changing Arctic stakeholdership. It analyzes participation in fisheries governance decision-making by examining the emergence of discourses and policy networks that come to define the very need for reform. A policy network is identified across state ministries, powerful officials, banks and large scale industry that defined the need for fisheries reform within a 'grand reform' discourse. But inertia characterized the actual decision-making process as reform according to this 'grand reform' discourse was blocked by a combination of small-scale fishermen' informal networks and the power of the parliamentary majority. After a parliamentary shift in power the new government implemented the 'grand reform' gradually whilst new patterns of participation and exclusion emerged. In this process, the identities of the participating participants were reinterpreted to fit the new patterns of influence and participation. The article argues that fishery reform does not necessarily start with the collective recognition of a problem in marine resource use and a power-neutral process of institutional learning. Instead, it argues that fishery reform is likely to be the 'reform of somebody' and that this 'somebody' is itself a changing identity.
The legal limbo that defines the maritime space over which the process of delimitation of the outer continental shelf is applied appears today as an eminently practical question that needs to be addressed. The institutional framework provided by UNCLOS, which establishes the existence of an internationalized space on the seabed - the area - seems limited to respond to a debate that confuses Geology with Law. This article focuses on the powers of the International Seabed Authority as an agency authorized to act on behalf of Mankind by exploring its weaknesses in its exercise of this mandate in the context of that process. By analyzing the conflict between the expansionist goals of States and the embodied principle that gives the Authority the assignment to act on behalf of Mankind in securing a space that, according to the text of the Convention, belongs to it, we conclude that there are apparent inconsistencies in the institutional framework created the Montego Bay Convention. In our exegesis of Part XI of the Convention, we work on the cogent force of that principle and raise questions about the legal legitimacy of the entire process, ie in the absence of a clear statement by the above-mentioned Authority. We conclude that the text of the Convention provides the possibility of a direct intervention by the Authority but that there are still no political conditions for such a possibility to be realised.
For the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, solving the discard problem is a central issue. Through a study of the institutional set-up and initiatives to solve the discard problem in Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway, the article identifies the discard problem as related to natural and other material conditions as well as cultural conditions. Therefore, solving the discard problem requires not only technical and regulatory instruments, but also arenas and structures that allow and support cultural change processes.
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.