Search

Abstract Rigid fisheries management frameworks often leave fishers with limited possibilities and incentives to adjust the selectivity of their gears to the specific fishing conditions. Implementation of the landing obligation in European fisheries emphasizes fishers need to flexibility in which gear to use to be able to match the selectivity of the gear to the quota available. How fishers can play an important role in facilitating a more regionalised and flexible technical regulation by actively participating in the development of gears and contributing to the scientific documentation of their selectivity is discussed. Perspectives in the proposed technical regulation for EU fisheries and the regionalisation in the 2013 Common Fisheries Policy are discussed based on an analysis of the current EU technical regulation. Then is discussed a new pathway to address the problem, currently being trialled in Danish fisheries. Throughout the article, three themes are discussed: Identifying gear needs, development and testing of gear with fishers as central actors; how the selectivity of the gear should be documented; and opportunities for faster evaluation of new gear, following the regionalisation of the technical measure regulation. The paper concludes that a more flexible system of gear development and evaluation is possible by a) involvement of fishers in proposing gear adjustments, self-sampling and documenting results following scientific protocols and evaluation, testing a range of designs before scientific testing, and b) open for faster approval of gear use under a regionalised technical regulation regime with yearly adjustments of management plans containing the technical regulation. Highlights • The landing obligation requires the fishers to have gear flexibility to match the selectivity of gear to the available quota. • Regionalisation of management plans opens for faster evaluation and decision on proposed new selective gear variations. • Scientific support to fishers ideas speed up identification of promising gear design for scientific tests at a low-cost. • Fishers involvement depend on processes for gear development and political implementation of successful selective gears. • The debated EU Technical measures regulation might prove gear flexibility and fast tracking processes and fisher involving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews early experiences with what is commonly referred to as ‘regionalisation’. Initially, the article briefly recalls the shortcomings of the traditional, highly centralised governance structure of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union, for which regionalisation 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 regionalisation 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many definitions of the ecosystem approach circulate, the common denominator being the system approach which seeks to take the entirety of a marine ecosystem into consideration. As marine ecosystems cover large geographical areas this approach calls for cooperation between the riparian states. This has being acknowledged in EU policies such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Marine Spatial Planning Directive. Yet implementing the ecosystem approach in practise runs into some operationalisation issues such as the position of regional cooperation between Member States vis a vis the treaty of the European Union; the positioning of the ecosystem approach between fisheries management and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive; the problem of stakeholder involvement and the balancing of ecological and economic concerns; the tension of the need for relative stability and the introduction of possible new models for organising regional cooperation. These issues appear to be like elephants in the room: obvious issues related to the need for regionalisation which apparently remain undiscussed. In this article, based on analyses within a number of European projects and discussions with relevant actors, the needed discussion on how to organise the management of human activities at the appropriate geo-political level matching the scale of the ecosystem, hence institutionalising marine management at the regional level, is initiated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commonly, the Baltic Sea is pictured as a proactive region with a long-standing tradition for cooperation and surrounded by the "greenest" EU countries. In contrast, southern countries often suffer from the "Mediterranean Syndrome" in which the heterogenous socio political situation is given as the "proof" that cooperation would not work. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive adopted by European Union in 2008 is an important step towards ecosystem-based marine management and provides a legal document suggesting marine regions as a scale for cooperation. In this paper, we aim to explore stakeholders? perspectives on key factors for good governance at the regional sea level covering the Eastern Baltic States and the south of France. We targeted a broad panel of professionals from different sectors with a political, economic or societal importance in the respective seas. We suggest that Baltic and Mediterranean stakeholders are going through very different stages of governance adjustment fitting the purpose of ecosystem-based marine management. Baltic institutions are well established, which in some way prevents structural analysis of whether the current governance model is the most appropriate reaching GES. In the Mediterranean, the EU strategies faces institutional challenges, which is leading stakeholders to think "out of the box" about what is really needed for implementing ecosystem-based marine management for this sea. It is suggested that a golden opportunity exists at present in the Mediterranean to create a regional platform of cooperation, not only to fit the MSFD implementation, but also to improve governance of the Mediterranean Sea and its environmental status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The European fisheries policy has undergone a substantial reform. The reform process was initiated by a Green Paper published by the European Commission in 2009. It was recently finalised with an agreement on a new Basic Regulation between the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament in October 2013. The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy will be an important step towards a more sustainable fisheries policy in Europe. The most important reform steps are the introduction of maximum sustainable yield as the new management target, a landing obligation for bycatch and a governance shift towards regions. Although the mentioned reform elements are in generally very promising, their concrete design does not always meet existing expectations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In response to the shortcomings of the EU''s Common Fisheries Policy, the European Commission has suggested regionalising fisheries management. Examples already exist of the more decentralised management of certain fisheries. Since 2007, the Commission has requested national eel management plans (EMPs) from all EU eel-fishing nations, giving national management bodies considerable freedom to develop their own EMPs. To examine the prerequisites for decentralisation, the Swedish EMP was chosen as a case. The European eel is critically endangered due to overfishing and environmental degradation. Analysis of the Swedish EMP reveals serious flaws: the conflict between the objectives of species and fishery preservation has not been clarified nor is the prioritisation clear. The plan has not been critically reviewed and alternative options are not considered. Though the basic data are uncertain, this uncertainty is viewed as support for not adopting any safety margin. Management is therefore directed towards mitigating the negative effects of fishing and other human activities rather than realising the conservation objective. The efficiency of the various protection measures is also disputable; for example, translocation is problematic, as translocated (i.e., stocked) eels display impaired navigational abilities. Another problematic aspect of this conservation strategy is the slow implementation of the EMP. In conclusion, this study emphasises the necessity of legal and social science as well as natural science research to evaluate the efficiency and implementation of fishery management. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]