This paper discusses how public interests in seaports can be secured in the corporatized model. This corporatized model, in which port authorities engage in port development on a commercial basis, is increasingly used. We discuss in detail an important question that so far has not received attention in the literature on port governance: how can the public shareholders use their influence as shareholders of port authorities to achieve public policy goals. We advance the theoretical body of knowledge by applying insights from regulatory economics to the port industry. As an empirical illustration, we analyse the current practices of the public shareholders of the four large Dutch port authorities, based on policy documents and interviews. All of them have explicit shareholder policies. However, some of these policies are too broad to provide sufficient direction for the management team and supervisory board of the port authority involved.
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.
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.
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.
This article aims to present the most relevant practices of offshore oil contracting at an international level, in order to better understand the legal dynamics of the sector. The problem investigated deals with the terms of the legal relationship between the State and national and foreign public companies, as well as the relationship between States, with a view to the exploitation of shared offshore oil resources. This problem is current, taking into account both the fact that oil is a scarce resource, as well as the fact that its offshore exploration is particularly complex and risky. This article presents, in a non-exhaustive way, some examples of practices that illustrate contractual trends that have already crystallized. The approach to its content is made from an international law perspective, focused on the transnational challenges posed to States and operators. It is concluded that the sector is characterized by a huge variety of practices, which reveals an ability of operators to adapt to the characteristics of the concrete challenges of an offshore exploration project. It also shows the political and economic particularities of the States involved in the process.
In this article, we examine the relations between global value chain governance and environmental upgrading in maritime shipping. Drawing from interviews with global shipping companies and major buyers of shipping services (cargo-owners), we reveal the key issues and challenges faced in improving the environmental performance of maritime transportation. Contributing to the Global Value Chain (GVC) literature, we compare and analyze the influence of three main external drivers on environmental upgrading in the tanker, bulk and container shipping segments: regulation, cooperation and buyer demands. Our findings suggest that environmental upgrading is more likely to occur when global value chains are characterized by unipolar governance and where the lead firms are consumer-facing companies with reputational risks. Furthermore, environmental upgrading in shipping is not likely to materialize without clear and enforceable global regulation and stronger alignment between regulation and voluntary sustainability initiatives.
This article discusses the role of private regulators within the international legal framework of Arctic shipping. The role of private actors has been acknowledged both in legal scholarship and policy papers; but it has not yet been placed in the centre of attention. This article does so by analysing the role of private actors under the Polar Code and three types of private regulation — guidelines of classification societies, requirements of insurance industry and private contracting. It concludes that private actors have an essential role both in developing and effectuation of public international law and thus in achieving sustainable Arctic shipping.
Maritime shipping is the transmission belt of the global economy. It is also a major contributor to global environmental change through its under-regulated air, water and land impacts. It is puzzling that shipping is a lagging sector as it has a well-established global regulatory body—the International Maritime Organization. Drawing on original empirical evidence and archival data, we introduce a four-factor framework to investigate two main questions: why is shipping lagging in its environmental governance; and what is the potential for the International Maritime Organization to orchestrate emerging private ‘green shipping’ initiatives to achieve better ecological outcomes? Contributing to transnational governance theory, we find that conditions stalling regulatory progress include low environmental issue visibility, poor interest alignment, a broadening scope of environmental issues, and growing regulatory fragmentation and uncertainty. The paper concludes with pragmatic recommendations for the International Maritime Organization to acknowledge the regulatory difficulties and seize the opportunity to orchestrate environmental progress.
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 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.