Advertisement

The Politics of Implementation in Resource Conservation: Comparing the EU/Denmark and Norway

  • Stig S. Gezelius
  • Troels Jacob Hegland
  • Hilary Palevsky
  • Jesper Raakjær
Part of the Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries book series (REME, volume 8)

Abstract

This chapter discusses implementation as a policy instrument in terms of fishery resource conservation. Implementation is primarily a means of pursuing established political goals. However, it is also a potential means of deliberate subversion or change of political goals. The chapter describes the development of multiple goals in fisheries management and addresses mechanisms through which conservation goals are subverted or changed at the implementation stage. Through comparison between The EU/Denmark and Norway, the chapter identifies factors that promote and prevent subversion of conservation goals during implementation.

Keywords

Member State Fishery Management Resource Conservation Conservation Policy Multiple Agenda 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blom-Hansen, J. (2005). Principals, agents, and the implementation of EU cohesion policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(4), 624–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burns, C. (2004). Codecision and the European Commission: A study of declining influence? Journal of European Public Policy, 11(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, T., Egeberg, M., Larsen, H.O., Lægreid, P., Roness, P.G. (2007). Forvaltning og politikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., et al. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2007). COM (2007) 136 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities, 28.3.2007.Google Scholar
  6. European Court of Auditors (2007). Special Report No 7/2007 (pursuant to Article 248(4), second paragraph, EC) on the control, inspection and sanction systems relating to the rules on conservation of Community fisheries resources.Google Scholar
  7. Foucault, M. (1999). Diskursens orden. Oslo: Spartacus.Google Scholar
  8. Gezelius, S.S. (2002). Environmental Sustainability and Political Survival – A Comparative Analysis of the Cod Fisheries of Canada and Norway. Environmental Politics 11(4), 63–82.Google Scholar
  9. Gezelius, S.S. (2003). Regulation and Compliance in the Atlantic Fisheries: State/Society Relations in the Management of Natural Resources. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Gezelius, S.S. (2007a). The Social Aspects of Fishing Effort: Technology and Community in Norway’s Blue Whiting Fisheries. Human Ecology, 35(5), 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gezelius, S.S. (2007b). Three Paths from Law Enforcement to Compliance: Cases from the Fisheries. Human Organization, 66 (4), 414–425.Google Scholar
  12. Gezelius, S.S. (2008). Management Responses to the Problem of Incidental Catch in Fishing: A Comparative Analysis of the EU, Norway, and the Faeroe Islands. Marine Policy, 32(3), 360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Government of Denmark (2007). Vedtagne TAC-kvoter for 2008. Endelig version, 19. december 2007. Copenhagen: Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries.Google Scholar
  15. Government of Norway (2003). St. meld. nr. 43 (2002–2003). Om dei fiskeriavtalane Noreg har inngått med andre land for 2003 og fisket etter avtalane i 2001 og 2002. Oslo: Ministry of Fisheries.Google Scholar
  16. Government of Norway (2007). St. meld. nr. 32 (2006–2007). Om dei fiskeriavtalene Noreg har inngått med andre land for 2007 og fisket etter avtalene i 2005 og 2006. Oslo: Ministry of Fisheries.Google Scholar
  17. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Common. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauck, M. (2008). Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Marine Policy, 32(4), 635–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hegland, T.J. (2004). The Common Fisheries Policy – caught between fish and fishermen? Aalborg: Department of International Affairs, Aalborg University. MA European Studies: 117 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  20. Holden, M. (1994). The Common Fisheries Policy – Origin, Evaluation and Future. Oxford: Fishing News Books, Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Jentoft, S. (1991). Hengende snøre: Fiskerikrisen og framtiden på kysten. Oslo: Ad Notam forlag.Google Scholar
  22. Nedergaard, P. (2007). Blocking minorities: networks and meaning in the opposition against the proposal for a directive on temporary work in the Council of Ministers of the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(3), 695–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peterson, J. (1995). Decision-making in the European Union: towards a framework for analysis. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raakjær, J. (forthcoming). Fisheries management systems in crisis! Senior doctoral dissertation, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University.Google Scholar
  25. Ragin, C.C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rozwadowski, H.M. (2002). The Sea Knows No Boundaries: A Century of Marine Science under ICES. Copenhagen: ICES.Google Scholar
  27. Sagdahl, B.K. (1992). Ressursforvaltning og legitimitetsproblemer: En studie av styringsproblemer ved forvaltning av norsk-arktisk torsk. Bodø: Nordland Research Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Sissenwine, M., Symes, D. (2007). Reflections on the Common Fisheries Policy. Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. July 2007.Google Scholar
  29. Symes, D. (2005). Viewpoint: Altering course: future directions for Europe’s fisheries policy. Fisheries Research, 71, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zetterholm, S. (1980). Implementeringspolitik: En form av politisk detagande. In: J. Andersen, S. Bislev et al. (Eds.), Grænser for deltagelse – om politisk indflydelse og medbestemmelse. Institut for sociale forhold, administration og politiske institutioner. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stig S. Gezelius
  • Troels Jacob Hegland
  • Hilary Palevsky
  • Jesper Raakjær

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations