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 Maritime Industry 2030” was the kick-off conference for the Maritime Research Alliance (MRA), which was recently established in cooperation between seven Danish universities and two Danish maritime professional academies. This report summarizes the discussions at the conference and broader important maritime industry issues as well as presents the goals of MRA.
There have been several calls from private foundations, industry associations and governmental agencies to map out and to extensively coordinate cross-disciplinary maritime research in Denmark. MRA is an initiative that strengthens existing and creates new collaborative relationships across the universities and maritime academies, in part as a response to such calls. The most important aims of MRA are to:
1. Find solutions to those challenges to the maritime sector that require cross-disciplinary ventures
2. Create a critical mass of expertise in Denmark for maritime and related topics
3. Be a visible and viable one-point-of-contact to academic involvement and output for the industry
4. Attract attention nationally and internationally for Danish maritime research and education
5. Make Danish universities and maritime academies attractive partners for international cooperation on maritime and related projects
About the conference-report:
The “Maritime Industry 2030” conference was an international and joint researcher/practitioner event held at the Copenhagen Business School during 5-6 February 2018.
The first day of the conference was an open event organized with the aim of bringing industry and academia together to identify and discuss the most important issues facing the maritime industry in the near term towards 2030 and to lay a firm foundation for closer cross-disciplinary collaboration for addressing these issues.
The second day of the conference was a closed event for MRA members organized with the aim to reflect on the identified issues, determine the future focus and direction of MRA and initiate specific collaborative research projects.
The conference was kindly supported by the Danish Maritime Fund. In 2020 the fund supported the establishment of the Maritime Research Alliance based on, among other, future cross-disciplinary research themes and ideas that were identified at the conference.
The EU Green Deal calls for a rapid and efficient green transition. On-going climate change and an increasing need for secure and sustainable energy means ambitious projects and goals are accelerated. To expand and exchange offshore wind energy across North Sea neighbouring countries, the Danish government presented in 2020 the Danish North Sea Energy Island (NSEI) project. This pilot project illustrates the shift from ‘nationally individualistic’ modes of connecting offshore wind energy projects, to supplying a multi-lateral renewable offshore energy grid. The Energy Island project builds on the Hub-and-Spoke (H&S) approach, which introduces a new level of complexity to governing the next generation of offshore wind energy projects. This paper analyses the political motivations for the Danish project and the planning and implementation of the Energy Islands, integrating a combination of collaborative and transboundary governance perspectives. The qualitative analysis is based on a document analysis and a literature review. Findings show how planning for the Danish Energy Island has faced delays and challenges, causing uncertainties about the Island’s capability to support Green Deal goals, as well as a mismatch between political ambitions and practical implementation. The artificial offshore island is currently under reconsideration due to costs and is, as of March 2024, still in its planning phase. This case study on the Danish NSEI serves as an introduction to the general functionalities and development of the Island and defines a Danish Energy Island. Results indicate that the combination of transboundary and collaborative governance structures are necessary as part of a successful implementation of Energy Islands.
This report analyses recent productivity developments in some of the main capture fisheries in Europe. Using data on specific fleet segments, productivity growth has been compared
between demersal fisheries in the UK, Spain, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and pelagic fisheries in the UK, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands.
Critical maritime infrastructure protection has become a priority in ocean governance, particularly in Europe. Increased geopolitical tensions, regional conflicts, and the Nord Stream pipeline attacks in the Baltic Sea of September 2022 have been the main catalysts for this development. Calls for enhancing critical maritime infrastructure protection have multiplied, yet, what this implies in practice is less clear. This is partially a question of engineering and risk analysis. It also concerns how the multitude of actors involved can act concertedly. Dialogue, information sharing, and coordination are required, but there is a lack of discussion about which institutional set ups would lend themselves. In this article, we argue that the maritime counter-piracy operations off Somalia, as well as maritime cybersecurity governance hold valuable lessons to provide new answers for the institutional question in the critical maritime infrastructure protection agenda. We start by clarifying what is at stake in the CMIP agenda and why it is a major contemporary governance challenge. We then examine and assess the instruments found in maritime counter-piracy and maritime cybersecurity governance, including why and how they provide effective solutions for enhancing critical maritime infrastructure protection. Finally, we assess the ongoing institution building for CMIP in Europe. While we focus on the European experience, our discussion on designing institutions carries forward lessons for CMIP in other regions, too.
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.
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is rooted in the Treaty of Rome. After its completion in 1983, the policy framework was gradually reformed through decennial reviews in 1993, 2003, and 2014. Due to geopolitical, physiographic, and historical reasons, the EU implementation of the CFP is most developed in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, and less developed in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. However, the CFP applies throughout European Union (EU) waters, which that are treated as a “common pond.” The CFP has been heavily contested since its introduction, and over long periods was characterized as a management system in crisis. Historically, the CFP has arguably struggled to perform and the policy’s ability to meet its objectives has not uncommonly been undermined by factors such as internally contradictory decisions and inefficient implementation. Since the turn of the century, the policy has changed its course by incrementally institutionalizing principles for a more environmentally orientated and scientifically based fisheries management approach. In general, in the latest decade, fisheries have become increasingly sustainable in both environmental and economic terms. An increasing number of fish stocks under the CFP are being exploited at sustainable levels—a development that is likely to continue, as fish stocks are coming to be more commonly managed along the lines of science-based multi-annual management plans. Consequently, many fishing fleets, particularly those deployed in northern waters, have shown good economic performance in recent years. This development has been further facilitated by the introduction of market-based management principles; in most member states these have been implemented by granting de facto ownership to fishing rights for free in the name of ecological and economic sustainability. This has, however, in many cases also led to huge wealth generation for a small privileged group of large-scale fishers at the expense of small-scale fisheries and smaller fishing communities, as well as society at large; this situation has led to calls for both a fairer distribution of fishing rights—to protect the small-scale sector—and for a resource rent or exploitation fee to be collected for the benefit of society at large, which is the true owner of fishing resources. Consequently, social sustainability, understood as the improved well-being of fishing communities and a fairer sharing out of the benefits derived from fisheries resources, should be a subject for the CFP to consider in the future.
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.