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.
This article builds on rich empirical data following our unexpected discovery of a local practice to circumvent a stressful
and counterproductive work environment due to distrust at the Port of Tema in Ghana. Using theoretical work on networks,
trust, and humor, as well as extensive ethnographic feldwork, we found that the humorous atmosphere at the regularly
held physical berthing meetings fosters a sense of community, which enables competing professions, private companies,
and public institutions to manage their mutual distrust. In an environment where trust among competitors is unrealistic, we
argue that the objective of the performance of humor and transparency at the physical berthing meetings is the management
of distrust rather than the creation of trust. The meetings have, gradually, grown to serve as a pragmatic local stakeholder
adaptation to the challenges posed by universally perceived politicized, opaque, and corrupt business practices at the Port
of Tema and beyond. In conclusion, we posit that our empirical fndings allow us to identify the potential of and gaps in
theories about trust and humor in understanding the dynamics of coping strategies among competitors in business settings
that are characterized by unethical practices.
This article builds on rich empirical data following our unexpected discovery of a local practice to circumvent a stressful
and counterproductive work environment due to distrust at the Port of Tema in Ghana. Using theoretical work on networks,
trust, and humor, as well as extensive ethnographic feldwork, we found that the humorous atmosphere at the regularly
held physical berthing meetings fosters a sense of community, which enables competing professions, private companies,
and public institutions to manage their mutual distrust. In an environment where trust among competitors is unrealistic, we
argue that the objective of the performance of humor and transparency at the physical berthing meetings is the management
of distrust rather than the creation of trust. The meetings have, gradually, grown to serve as a pragmatic local stakeholder
adaptation to the challenges posed by universally perceived politicized, opaque, and corrupt business practices at the Port
of Tema and beyond. In conclusion, we posit that our empirical fndings allow us to identify the potential of and gaps in
theories about trust and humor in understanding the dynamics of coping strategies among competitors in business settings
that are characterized by unethical practices.
This study investigates the appropriate port governance model for implementation of green port management (GPM) practices. Relying on social systems engineering principles, we propose a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework considering four port governance models and five major GPM practice indicators. We validate the MCDM framework using survey data collected from top management executives of three ports in the Indian Ocean Rim — Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. We compare the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method with more recently developed Best-Worst Method (BWM) in analysis of the MCDM problem of finding the right port governance model for GPM. We collect data using the ANP and BWM survey in January 2019 and August 2019, respectively, from the same respondents. While participating in the study in January 2019, the respondents did not know that they would respond to the same MCDM problem using a different model, which corresponds to a repeated measures experimental design. In both analyses, we find that increasing privatization in port governance would enhance the implementation of GPM practices. Our study furthermore suggests that BWM is a reliable MCDM method with greater applicability than ANP, as it requires significantly lower number of judgement comparisons.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the impact assessment of a mandatory operational goal-based short-term measure to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions from ships. The specific measure has been proposed by Denmark and other co-sponsors in the context of the relevant discussion at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and in particular the so-called Initial IMO Strategy. The IMO is a specialized United Nations agency that regulates shipping. The Initial IMO Strategy, adopted in 2018, has been the most recent major international environmental agreement on how to reduce GHG emissions from ships at a global level. The central research question in this paper is to ascertain the potential impacts of the aforementioned measure to least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS). There are concerns that such states may be negatively impacted, or even disproportionately negatively impacted, by whatever measure is decided by the IMO. After gaps in the literature and data are identified, our methodology develops a list of potential negative impacts, and looks at a set of factors that may influence these impacts. Then, we discuss how the goal-based measure may impact LDCs/SIDs as regards each of the identified negative impacts. The analysis argues that for LDCs and SIDS a risk for negative and disproportionately negative impacts exists. The only negative impact of which both the probability and the consequence are considered high is the difficulty to finance retrofitting of old ships or investment in new ships. As such, this is likely a disproportionally negative impact. At the same time, the degree of share (or responsibility) of the goal-based measure with respect to such potential negative impacts, vis-à-vis the share of other factors contributing to these impacts, cannot be precisely ascertained, even though we conjecture this share to be low.
In seeking to fulfill its mission, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is dependent on the capabilities of its Member States. While flag States remain primarily responsible for ensuring compliance of their registered vessels with instruments adopted under that United Nations specialized agency's aegis, coastal States also play a competing but complementary role in the balance of jurisdiction over ships. In particular, the right to regulate the vessel's intent on visiting the port, or its presence therein, is often relied upon to account for the limitations of flag State enforcement. The capacity to act as a port State under international law is the basis for certain implementation mechanisms stemming from treaty provisions on port state control, as well as for innovative practices of port States, either collectively or individually. This chapter provides the reader with an overview of the role of port State jurisdiction in IMO law and practice, and the challenges that can arise in the complex relationship between port States and the IMO.
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.
This book introduces a novel model to explain how the co-design and co-delivery of ocean science knowledge and solutions is influenced by ocean stakeholders with asymmetric power and resources, policy incentives and ocean conflict, ocean narratives, different knowledge systems, security concerns, principles, formal and informal rules, and communication competencies. Using the International Collaboration in Ocean Science model as a basis, the book advances with three lines of inquiry: ontological security of ocean science participants, the Ocean Decade and human well-being, and strategic narratives about international collaboration in ocean science. Through these, Carolijn van Noort shows the enabling and constraining conditions of co-creating ocean knowledge and solutions. Theoretically novel, the book provides a compelling framework for scholars to study ocean science collaboration.