Search

This deliverable describes PERMAGOV’s process of co-developing a simple diagnostic tool for identifying institutional barriers in practice. The tool builds on the systematic literature review, reported in Deliverable 3.1 (See here for a summary of Deliverable 3.1)). To turn the literature review into a usable diagnostic tool we co-developed an approach with end-users, experts and stakeholders to simplify how institutional barriers are described and to make it easier to identify and analyse them in our case studies. Building on in previous research (Oberlack 2017) the systematic review identified 11 institutional attributes which may give rise to institutional barriers: actor eligibility; actor roles and responsibilities; actor control; actor accountability; actor connectivity; conflict mechanisms; development and use of knowledge; scale of institutions; rigidity of institutions; formality of institutions; and institutionalized incentives. These attributes are best understood as components of the governance system where barriers may occur. Tracing barriers back to specific institutional attributes is key to our diagnostic approach. For example, institutional inertia might arise due to the rigidity of an institution, making it difficult to adapt to new issues or situations, or it might arise due to actors exerting control over an institution to preserve the status quo. Building on these 11 institutional attributes we developed simple descriptions of the types of barriers that might arise in each component. The simplified descriptions were tested and refined through end-user consultations, where they also provided real-world examples to exemplify these barriers, and a stakeholder workshop. A final diagnostic table was co-produced, which will be used in each case to identify and diagnose institutional barriers.

With increasing activities of multiple sectors in marine spaces, management of marine social-ecological systems requires more holistic approaches. Adopting such an approach, however, presents difficult institutional and disciplinary challenges. Here, we use the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as a case study on the implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM) and integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs). ICES includes EBM and IEAs in its Science Priorities and established IEA Working Groups (WGs) to carry out regional IEAs. But to what degree does this IEA WG work follow best practices? We examine policy documents, academic literature, and interview data from chairs of all IEA WGs. Results indicate mixed success. All groups acknowledge the holistic goals of IEA, and many use the IEA model as laid out by Levin et al. However, we found a significant variation in the degree to which the full model is applied. We identified two primary areas for improvement: (1) integration of social and economic issues and (2) involvement of stakeholders. We offer examples of how WGs have been making progress towards full IEAs, discuss how ICES can further support this transition, and suggest lessons with respect to the adoption of EBM and IEAs more broadly.

To limit compromising the integrity of the planet, a shift is needed towards food production with low environmental impacts and low carbon footprint. How to put such transformative change towards sustainable food production whilst ensuring food security into practice remains a challenge and will require transdisciplinary approaches. Combining expertise from natural- and social sciences as well as industry perspectives, an alternative vision for the future in the marine realm is proposed. This vision includes moving towards aquaculture mainly of low trophic marine (LTM) species. Such shift may enable a blue transformation that can support a sustainable blue economy. It includes a whole new perspective and proactive development of policy-making which considers, among others, the context-specific nature of allocation of marine space and societal acceptance of new developments, over and above the decarbonization of food production, vis á vis reducing regulatory barriers for the industry for LTM whilst acknowledging the complexities of upscaling and outscaling. This needs to be supported by transdisciplinary research co-produced with consumers and wider public, as a blue transformation towards accelerating LTM aquaculture opportunities in a net zero-carbon world can only occur by considering the demands of society.

The ICES Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Cod Stocks (WKBALTCOD2) met at ICES Headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark on 4–8 February 2019, following a data evaluation workshop (Chair Johan Lövgren) and several preparatory web conference meetings. The meeting, cochaired by Meaghan Bryan, USA (External Chair) and Michele Casini, Sweden (ICES Chair), was attended by two invited external experts, Vladlena Gertseva, USA, and Verena Trenkel, France, and 47 participants from 10 countries. Participants represented a diversity of groups including industry, NGOs, managers, and scientists. The objectives of WKBALTCOD2 were to evaluate the appropriateness of the data and the assessment methods to determine stock status for the Western Baltic cod (SD 22-24) and the Eastern Baltic cod (SD 24-32) stocks, evaluate the short-term forecasting methods, re-examine and update the reference points, and update the stock annex as appropriate to these stocks. The workshop started with a group discussion of data issues and decisions that were integral to both assessments. Subsequent, stock-specific discussions were held in smaller subgroups and the main results and conclusions were presented in plenary. Around 15–20 persons, together with at least one external reviewer/co-chair, participated in each of the subgroups. A single modelling approach, the state-space stock assessment model (SAM), was presented for Western Baltic cod. This model has been used previously to determine stock status of Western Baltic cod and the panel agreed that this model should be used for the current assessment. The main issues that emerged and were addressed during the workshop for this stock were stock mixing in SD 24, the inclusion of new recreational data from Sweden and Denmark, the inclusion of a German pound-net survey index of age-0 fish in the assessment model, the extension of the time-series of the assessment back in time, and the update of reference points. Future efforts should be made to updat

Any ecosystem based fisheries management system is necessarily faced with the problem of multiple objectives that trade-off against one another. Typically, objectives such as the maximization of yield, employment or profit or minimizing environmental impacts will be optimized in different parts of the decision space, which is formed of the fishing mortality rates that can be applied to the various species, given the constraints imposed by the mixed species nature of many fishing fleets. Since objectives cannot be simultaneously achieved, managers need to consider how such objectives trade-off against one another in order to choose a balanced strategy. Normally, they also have to consider the views of different groupings of stakeholders, who often favour widely different and conflicting objectives. This is particularly difficult if stakeholders are reluctant to expose their negotiating positions. This article explores two possible approaches to developing a Decision Support Framework for the North Sea. The first is a classic Multi- Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach that was developed in cooperation with North Sea stakeholders. The implementation went smoothly for the definition of suitable scenarios, decision trees and criteria, but failed in facilitating consensus on how to set priorities at the stakeholder level. However, it remains a possible approach for higher level management to adopt. Consequently, to aid effective decision-making a simpler approach was designed to visualise stakeholders concerns both to themselves and to the managers in charge of actual decision-making. Rather than trying to achieve some joint optima of the objectives that stakeholders wish to achieve this approach seeks to avoid the solutions various stakeholder groups resent the most. This ‘N dimensional potato approach’ proposed here treats the decision space as analogous to a partially rotten potato that has to be prepared for the table: each group of stakeholders cut away those parts of t

We present a framework for results-based management (RBM) of commercial fisheries. The core idea of RBM is to reduce micromanagement by delegating management responsibility to resource users. The RBM framework represents an industrial organization approach to co-management and comprises three defining processes, conducted by three independent “agents”: (i) an “authority” defines specific and measurable and achievable objectives (outcome targets, OTs) for the utilization of fisheries resources, (ii) resource user organizations (termed “operators”) take responsibility for achieving these OTs and provide documentation that (iii) allows independent “auditors” to evaluate the achievement of OTs. Using incentive mechanisms, notably deregulation, RBM grants operators the flexibility to develop and implement innovative and cost-effective ways to achieve OTs. The feasibility of implementing RBM in five European fisheries was investigated in cooperation with relevant stakeholders through artificial planning processes and computer simulations. The operators involved were enthusiastic, and new management plans were drafted based on the framework. These included socioeconomic OTs in addition to traditional stock objectives, encompassing an ecosystem approach. Several issues are in need of further research to consolidate the approach and prepare the ground for practical implementation, including: the specification of the legal and regulatory framework required to underpin RBM, details of transitional arrangements when shifting towards RBM (including cost-sharing) and the development of necessary organizational capacity for operators. Initially, we therefore envisage the framework being applied to high-value single-species fisheries, with a limited number of participants, which are adequately represented by a competent organization.