Search

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This report builds on earlier EWG results (19-03, 20-14, 22-14) and further develops the methodologies for the collection and analysis of social data in fisheries. In particular it addresses the development of National Fisheries Profiles (NFP) and advocates the development of a web based version of the NFP. In addition, it reflects on policy questions generated by DG MARE and indicates how social data could assist in answering these policy questions. Finally, the report evaluates responses of the Member States towards the European Commission’s (EC) questionnaire about the implementation of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

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 support the implementation of the Ecosystem Based approach to Management (EBM), ICES strives to provide evidence-based scientific advice and relevant management options that also assess potential trade-offs among sectors or between environmental status and human uses. To help achieve this, the Workshop on Challenges, Opportunities, Needs and Successes in including human dimensions in Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) (WKCONSERVE) focused on economic, social, and interdisciplinary research and data needed to inform on the societal drivers and objectives of marine resource use as context for advice. More specifically, the workshop goals were to a) summarize social and economic data, indicators and relevant research done across ICES IEA regions and other IEA regions, b) Identify goals for including social and economic data and analyses in different IEAs, and c) to develop a roadmap for including social and economic data and analyses in IEAs, identifying common needs across groups and unique priorities of each region. Discussion across IEA groups made clear that while great strides have been made in ICES IEA groups to identify and provide important ecological measures relevant to EBM, far less attention has been given to providing comparable economic and social information. WKCONSERVE identified a number of practical steps to take to include more societal measures relevant to EBM. These differ among regions, depending on data availability and ecosystem context, and are detailed in IEA roadmaps developed during the workshop. However, in general, the first step involves including social scientists in the IEA groups. Key topics and data for each IEA region were identified. It was, however, repeatedly noted that more interaction with stakeholders will help both IEA and human dimensions Expert Groups to better develop research and data collection efforts to address stakeholder needs. A lack of funding is a key obstacle to the development of IEAs, both regarding

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This report further develops the methodologies for the collection and analysis of social data in fisheries, to be applied for the collection of social data for the data call 2021 and the subsequent analysis and use of these data. Additionally, the report assesses the impact of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation and the implementation of its Articles 5.2 (access to waters) and 16 and 17 (fishing opportunities) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the social situation of small-scale coastal fishers and their communities.

An Impact Assessment (IA) is a process aimed at structuring and supporting the development of policies. Besides the fact that IA assumes different features when applied to different sectors, really it should help policy makers in evaluating the contribution to the fisheries sustainability of new regulations. The recent improvements and development around the IA methodologies go more and more toward the concept of a Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA). The evolution of IA in the fishery sector has followed the general and increasing need in having a more and more integrated type of analysis, focusing on the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social). This paper synthesizes the methodology developed under the EU FP7 SOCIOEC project,1 whose main objective was the application of the most recent EU guidelines on IA to the current (and future) EU fishery management. The result is an integrated approach taking into account the main pillars of sustainability and a strong stakeholders’ involvement. A clear step-by-step procedure based on both qualitative and quantitative type of analyses has been defined, the last step being the “rating” phase, an essential step in a SIA, that provides the possibility to assess the results of different policy options (allowing policy makers to select the most appropriate one) in terms of acceptability, effectiveness, coherence and efficiency. The overall methodology has been tested on different EU regions, fisheries and management measures.

An Impact Assessment (IA) is a process aimed at structuring and supporting the development of policies. Besides the fact that IA assumes different features when applied to different sectors, really it should help policy makers in evaluating the contribution to the fisheries sustainability of new regulations. The recent improvements and development around the IA methodologies go more and more toward the concept of a Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA). The evolution of IA in the fishery sector has followed the general and increasing need in having a more and more integrated type of analysis, focusing on the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, economic and social). This paper synthesizes the methodology developed under the EU FP7 SOCIOEC project,1 whose main objective was the application of the most recent EU guidelines on IA to the current (and future) EU fishery management. The result is an integrated approach taking into account the main pillars of sustainability and a strong stakeholders’ involvement. A clear step-by-step procedure based on both qualitative and quantitative type of analyses has been defined, the last step being the “rating” phase, an essential step in a SIA, that provides the possibility to assess the results of different policy options (allowing policy makers to select the most appropriate one) in terms of acceptability, effectiveness, coherence and efficiency. The overall methodology has been tested on different EU regions, fisheries and management measures.

The lack of clarity in the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) must be addressed to create a more efficient balance across diverse ecological, economic and social dimensions. Particularly economic and social objectives present at an overarching level must be made explicit and addressed in lower level management measures, in order to link them to biological objectives and allow policy to build a balance across types of objectives. Selecting clear objectives is essential, particularly for policy impact assessment. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how more specific high level objectives to managing fisheries can be derived from stakeholders. The paper first reviews the definition of objectives, from a historical and conceptual perspective. Secondly, it discusses the issues of manageability and acceptability, and finally describes an articulation of the high level objectives derived from extensive stakeholder consultations at European and regional level. The results from workshops at the European level to identify objectives were further examined at regional level for the Baltic and North Seas in additional individual consultations. The German case addresses two seas (Baltic and North Seas), has a complex governance structure (due to federalism) and significant roles for the three types of actors (industry, government and environmental NGOs). The analysis suggests that establishing higher level sustainability objectives within the CFP can help diverse interest groups to develop a consensus on management actions to meet complex social goals

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 onward. 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) 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 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 onward. 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) 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 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 onward. 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) 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.