AMBIO

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 133–143 | Cite as

The Regional Advisory Councils: What is Their Potential to Incorporate Stakeholder Knowledge into Fisheries Governance?

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Common fisheries policy European Union Fisheries management Governance Stakeholder participation 

References

  1. Astorkiza, K., I. del Valle, I. Astorkiza, T.J. Hegland, and J. Pascoe. 2006. Participation. In The Knowledge Base for Fisheries Management, ed. L. Motos, and D.C. Wilson, 239–266. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bäckstrand, K. 2004. Science, uncertainty and participation in global environmental governance. Environmental Politics 13(3): 650–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BSRAC. 2006. Recommendations on the management of demersal fisheries. http://www.bsrac.org/archive/Dokumenter/Recommendations/Demersal050906.pdf.
  4. CEC. 2009. Commission of the European Communities Green Paper. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. 163 final, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. COM. 2004. Council Decision of 19 July 2004 establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy, 2004/585/EC.Google Scholar
  6. Daw, T., and T. Gray. 2005. Fisheries science and sustainability in international policy: A study of failure in the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy 29: 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Degnbol, D., and D.C. Wilson. 2008. Spatial planning on the North Sea: A case of cross-scale linkages. Marine Policy 32: 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietz, T., and P.C. Stern (eds.). 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Eagle, J., S. Newkirk, and B. Thompson. 2003. Taking Stock of the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  12. EC. 2002a. Communication from the Commission on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Road Map, Luxembourg, Commission COM(2002)181.Google Scholar
  13. EC. 2002b. Council Regulation No. 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.Google Scholar
  14. FAO. 2009. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Gray, T., and J. Hatchard. 2003. The 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’s system of governance rhetoric or reality? Marine Policy 27: 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffin, L. 2007. All aboard: Power, participation and governance in the North Sea Regional Advisory Council. International Journal of Green Economics 1: 478–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffin, L. 2009. Scales of knowledge: North Sea fisheries governance, the local fisherman and the European scientist. Environmental Politics 18(4): 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Hegland, T.J. 2006. Fisheries policy making: Production and use of knowledge. In The Knowledge Base for Fisheries Management, ed. L. Motos, and D.C. Wilson, 219–237. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Holden, M.J. 1994. The Common Fisheries Policy: Origin, Evaluation, Future. Oxford: Fishing News Books.Google Scholar
  26. ICES WGFS. 2007. Report of the Working Group on Fishery Systems (WGFS). Copenhagen: ICES.Google Scholar
  27. IRGC. 2005. White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.Google Scholar
  28. IRGC. 2007. An Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework Policy Brief. Geneva: IRGC.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Jentoft, S. 2006. Beyond fisheries management: The Phronetic dimension. Marine Policy 30: 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Lidskog, R. 2008. Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide. Journal of Risk Research 11(1): 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NSRAC. 2004. Report of the North Sea Regional Advisory Council First General Assembly, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Stead, S., T. Daw, and T. Gray. 2006. Uses of fishers’ knowledge in fisheries management. Anthropology in Action 13(3): 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Symes, D. 1997. The European community’s common fisheries policy. Ocean and Coastal Management 35: 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Varjopuro, R., T.S. Gray, J. Hatchard, F. Rauschmayer, and H. Wittmer. 2008. Introduction: Interaction between environment and fisheries—The role of stakeholder participation. Marine Policy 32: 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verweij, M.C., W. van Densen, and A. Mol. 2010. The tower of Babel: Different perceptions and controversies on change and status of North Sea fish stocks in multi-stakeholder settings. Marine Policy 34: 522–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, D.C. 2009. The Paradoxes of Transparency Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  45. WWF. 2009. European Fisheries: How to Improve the Regional Advisory Councils. WWF study November 2009, Brussels.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STS, Department of SociologyUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.DIALOGIKStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations