The Regional Advisory Councils: What is Their Potential to Incorporate Stakeholder Knowledge into Fisheries Governance?
- 417 Downloads
The protection of the Baltic Sea ecosystem is exacerbated by the social, environmental and economic complexities of governing European fisheries. Increased stakeholder participation and knowledge integration are suggested to improve the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), suffering from legitimacy, credibility and compliance problems. As a result, the CFP was revised in 2002 to involve fisheries representatives, NGOs and other stakeholders through so called Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) in the policy process. We address the RAC’s task to incorporate stakeholder knowledge into the EU’s fisheries governance system in empirical and theoretical perspectives. Drawing on a four-stage governance concept we subsequently suggest that a basic problem is a mismatch between participation purpose (knowledge inclusion) and the governance stage at which RACs are formally positioned (evaluation of management proposals). We conclude that, if the aim is to broaden the knowledge base of fisheries management, stakeholders need to be included earlier in the governance process.
KeywordsCommon fisheries policy European Union Fisheries management Governance Stakeholder participation
- BSRAC. 2006. Recommendations on the management of demersal fisheries. http://www.bsrac.org/archive/Dokumenter/Recommendations/Demersal050906.pdf.
- BSRAC. 2008. Recommendations on the fisheries for Baltic Sea fish species in 2009. http://www.bsrac.org/archive/Dokumenter/Recommendations/Recommendations%20Baltic%20Sea%20fish%20species%202009/BS%20RAC%20Recommendation%20on%20the%20fisheries%20in%202009.pdf.
- CEC. 2009. Commission of the European Communities Green Paper. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. 163 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
- COM. 2004. Council Decision of 19 July 2004 establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy, 2004/585/EC.Google Scholar
- Dietz, T., and P.C. Stern (eds.). 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Dreyer, M., and O. Renn. 2009. A structured approach to participation. In Food Safety Governance. Integrating Science, Precaution and Public Involvement, ed. M. Dreyer, and O. Renn, 111–120. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Dreyer, M., O. Renn, E. Borodzicz, and B. Drakeford. 2009. Conceptual reflections on participation in the governance of fisheries and recent EU-level reforms for strengthened stakeholder involvement. Deliverable 2.1 of JAKFISH. Stuttgart: DIALOGIK.Google Scholar
- Eagle, J., S. Newkirk, and B. Thompson. 2003. Taking Stock of the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- EC. 2002a. Communication from the Commission on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Road Map, Luxembourg, Commission COM(2002)181.Google Scholar
- EC. 2002b. Council Regulation No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.Google Scholar
- FAO. 2009. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.Google Scholar
- Funtowicz, S., and R. Strand. 2007. Models of science and policy. In Biosafety First, ed. T. Traavik, and L.C. Lim, 263–278. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
- Gray, T.S. 2005. Participatory fisheries governance—Three central themes. In Participation in Fisheries Governance (Reviews: Methods and technologies in fish biology and fisheries), ed. T.S. Gray, 343–356. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hanna, S. 2006. Will structural reform fix fishery management? Policy recommendations and the regional fishery management council system. Bulletin of Marine Science 78(3): 547–562.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, A.D. 2007. Review of Science & Stakeholder Involvement in the Production of Advice on Fisheries Management. Work Package 4 paper of the EU project ‘Scientific Advice for Fisheries Management at Multiple Scales’ (SAFMAMS).Google Scholar
- Hegland, T.J., and J. Raakjær. 2008. Recovery plans and the balancing of fishing capacity and fishing possibilities: Path dependence in the common fisheries policy. In Making Fisheries Management Work, ed. S.S. Gezelius, and J. Raakjær, 131–159. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hegland, T.J., and D.C. Wilson. 2009. Participatory modelling in EU fisheries management: Western Horse Mackarel and the Pelagic RAC. Journal of Maritime Studies 8(1): 75–96.Google Scholar
- Holden, M.J. 1994. The Common Fisheries Policy: Origin, Evaluation, Future. Oxford: Fishing News Books.Google Scholar
- ICES WGFS. 2007. Report of the Working Group on Fishery Systems (WGFS). Copenhagen: ICES.Google Scholar
- IRGC. 2005. White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.Google Scholar
- IRGC. 2007. An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework Policy Brief. Geneva: IRGC.Google Scholar
- Irwin, I. 2008. STS perspectives on scientific governance. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Jentoft, S. 2008. How governance can help to build long-term management plans? Presentation at the RACs’s Seminar on Long Term Management Plans. Sept. 11–12 Nantes, France.Google Scholar
- NSRAC. 2004. Report of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council First General Assembly, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
- NSRAC. 2009. ExCom: Record of Meeting. Annex 1. NSRAC Internal Review, Facilitator’s Report, Doug Wilson, Innovative Fisheries Management. http://www.acsfilmfest.co.uk/nsrac/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Draft_Record_Gothenburg_with_annexes_ex200906292.pdf.
- Raymond, C.M., I. Fazey, M.S. Reed, L.C. Stringer, G.M. Robinson, and A.C. Evely. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023.
- Renn, O., and K. Walker. 2008. Lessons learned: A re-assessment of the IRGC framework on risk governance. In Global Risk Governance, ed. O. Renn, and K. Walker, 331–367. Berlin, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Rice, J. 2005. Bringing experiential knowledge into fisheries science advisory processes: Lessons learned from the Canadian experience of participatory governance. In Participation in fisheries governance (Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries), ed. T.S. Gray, 249–268. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Sellke, P., and M. Dreyer. 2010. Fisheries: A case study of environmental risk governance in the Baltic Sea. Deliverable 3 of the Bonus + research project ‘Environmental Risk Governance of the Baltic Sea (RISKGOV)’ (Project No. 03F0489A). Stuttgart: DIALOGIK.Google Scholar
- Sissenwine, M., and D. Symes. 2007. Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy: Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
- Wilson, D.C. 2009. The Paradoxes of Transparency Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
- WWF. 2009. European Fisheries: How to Improve the Regional Advisory Councils. WWF study November 2009, Brussels.Google Scholar