Advertisement

Muddying the Waters of the Landing Obligation: How Multi-level Governance Structures Can Obscure Policy Implementation

  • Luc van Hoof
  • Marloes KraanEmail author
  • Noor M. Visser
  • Emma Avoyan
  • Jurgen Batsleer
  • Brita Trapman

Abstract

The 2013 reform of the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) included an increased drive for regionalisation of the policy implementation and the introduction of the Landing Obligation (LO). The process of implementing the LO takes place at multiple levels of governance within the EU. We use the case of the implementation of the LO in the Netherlands, where policymakers and the fishing industry cooperate towards a workable policy implementation. In this paper, we argue that the EU’s complex and unconsolidated implementation structure hampers a fair and clear implementation process. Three main causes can be distinguished: first, a lack of a shared understanding of the goal of the Landing Obligation within and between the different governance levels that are involved in the implementation process. Second, no meaningful discussions are taking place between concurrent resource users, resource managers and supporters of the LO regarding the need and usefulness of the measure, as there is no arena in the governance system for them to meet. With the introduction of the Regional Advisory Councils in the 2002 CFP reform, a platform for discussion between fishers and NGOs was created, but this platform has only an advisory role and does not include the Member States. Third, the relationship between different decision-making bodies is unclear, as is the manner in which stakeholder input will be included in decision-making about implementing the LO. The result of this implementation process has been a diluted policy where the goal, its execution and its effectiveness remain unclear.

Keywords

Common Fisheries Policy Landing obligation Multi-level governance Regionalisation Subsidiarity 

References

  1. Batsleer, J. (2016). Fleet dynamics in a changing policy environment. PhD thesis. Wageningen, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
  2. Borges, L. (2015). The evolution of a discard policy in Europe. Fish and Fisheries, 16, 534−540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borges, L., Cocas, L., Nielsen, K.N. (2016). Discard ban and balanced harvest: A contradiction? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73, 1632−1639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borges, L., & Penas Lado, E. (this volume). Discards in the common fisheries policy: The evolution of the policy. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Catchpole, T., Keeken, O.v., Gray, T., Piet, G. (2008). The discard problem – A comparative analysis of two fisheries: The English Nephrops fishery and the Dutch beam trawl fishery. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51, 772–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Copes, P. (1986). A critical review of the individual quota as a device in Fisheries Management. Land Economics, 62, 278−291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Vos, B., Döring, R., Aranda, M., Buisman, F., Frangoudes, K., Goti, L., Macher, C., et al. (2016). New modes of fisheries governance: implementation of the landing obligation in four European countries. Marine Policy, 64, 1−8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliasen, S.Q., Hegland, T.J., Raakjær, J. (2015). Decentralising: the implementation of regionalisation and co-management under the post-2013 Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy, 62, 224−232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2007). Communication From the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European Fisheries. Commission of the European Communities, COM(2007) 136 final, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2009). Green Paper reform of the common fisheries policy, COM163 final.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2011a). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; reform of the common fisheries policy COM 417 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission. (2011b). Reform package.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common fisheries policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. (2015). Regulation (EU) 2015/812 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2187/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 2347/2002 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards the landing obligation, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2016). Fact sheets on the European Union: the common fisheries policy, origins and development. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/index_en.htm. Last accessed: August 30, 2018.
  16. Fish Fight. (2014). The fish fight story. Available at: http://www.fishfight.net/story.html. Last accessed: August 22, 2018.
  17. Fitzpatrick, M., Frangoudes, K., Fauconnet, L., Quetglas, A. (this volume). Fishing industry perspectives on the EU Landing Obligation. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Frangoudes, K., Leleu, K., Rochet M-J., Trekel, V. (2015). Vision of French fishers about the European Union regulation on Landing Obligation (LO): which ecological and economical impacts and which strategies to cope with it? Extended abstract ICES ASC. Available at: http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/ASCExtendedAbstracts/Shared%20Documents/L%20-%20Science-industry%20partnership.%20The%20value%20of%20cooperative%20research%20in%20fisheries%20and%20marine%20management/L2115.pdf. Last accessed: August 30, 2018.
  19. Frost, H., & Andersen, P. (2006). The Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union and fisheries economics. Marine Policy, 30, 737−746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harley, S.J., Millar, R.B., McArdle, B.H. (2000). Examining the effects of changes in the minimum legal sizes used in the Hauraki Gulf snapper (Pagrus auratus) fishery in New Zealand. Fisheries Research, 45, 179−187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins, T. (2005). The role of partnerships in the governance of fisheries within the European Union. In T.S. Gray (Ed)., Participation in fisheries governance (pp. 27−44). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Heath, M.R., Cook, R.M., Cameron, A.I., Morris, D.J., Speirs, D.C. (2014). Cascading ecological effects of eliminating fishery discards. Nature Communications, 5, 3893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hedley, C., Catchpole, T., Santos, A. (2015). The landing obligation and its implications on the control of fisheries. The European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  24. Hegland, T.J., Ounanian, K., Raakjær, J. (2012). Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy. Maritime Studies, 11, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnsen, J.P., & Eliasen, S. (2011). Solving complex fisheries management problems: what the EU can learn from the Nordic experiences of reduction of discards. Marine Policy, 35, 130−139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kickert, W. (2003). Beneath consensual corporatism: traditions of governance in the Netherlands. Public Administration, 81, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kraan, M., Verkempynck, R., Steins, N. (2015). Technical Measures in the Atlantic and the North Sea – working with Stakeholders towards meaningful revision. Workshop – in depth analysis. In: A new technical measures framework for the new Common Fisheries Policy. Marcus Breuer and Carmen-Paz Marti. Available at: Brussels EU report. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies. Last accessed: August 30, 2018.
  28. Kraan, M.L., & Verweij, M. (in press). Implementing the landing obligation in the Netherlands; an analysis of the gap between fishery and the ministry. In P. Holm, M. Hadjimichael, S. Mackinson (Eds.), Bridging the gap: collaborative research practices in the fisheries. MARE Publication Series. Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Mytilineou, C., Herrmann, B., Mantopoulou-Palouka, D., Sala, A., Megalofonou, P., Handling editor: Finbarr, O.N. (2018). Modelling gear and fishers size selection for escapees, discards, and landings: a case study in Mediterranean trawl fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, fsy047-fsy047.Google Scholar
  30. Naver, A. (2014). Dispute in Parliament creates confusion over discard ban. CFP Reform Watch. Available at: http://cfp-reformwatch.eu/2014/12/dispute-in-parliament-creates-confusion-over-discard-ban/.
  31. Pastoors, M.A., Buisman, E., van Oostenbrugge, H., Kraan, M.L., van Beek, F.A., Uhlmann, S.S., van Helmond, A.T.M. (2014). Fasering discard ban. IMARES report C070/14.Google Scholar
  32. Poos, J.J., Bogaards, J.A., Quirijns, F.J., Gillis, D.M., Rijnsdorp, A.D. (2010). Individual quotas, fishing effort allocation, and over-quota discarding in mixed fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67, 323−333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Popescu, I. (2015). Adapting EU fisheries legislation to the landing obligation. European Parliament Research Service, EU Legislation in Progress, Briefing.Google Scholar
  34. Raakjear, J., Abreu, H., Armstrong, C., Hegland, T., van Hoof, L., Ounanian, K., Ramirez, P., et al. (2010). Exploring the option of regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy. Making the European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan Operational (MEFEPO): Work package 4 technical document.Google Scholar
  35. Rihan, D., Uhlmann, S.S., Ulrich, C., Breen, M., Catchpole, T. (this volume). Requirements for documentation, data collection and scientific evaluations. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Rochet, M.-J., & Trenkel, V.M. (2005). Factors for the variability of discards: assumptions and field evidence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62, 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sardà, F., Coll, M., Heymans, J.J., & Stergiou, K.I. (2015). Overlooked impacts and challenges of the new European discard ban. Fish and Fisheries, 16, 175−180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwägerl, C. (2013). 'Will reform finally end the plunder of Europe’s fisheries?. Yale Environment, 360.Google Scholar
  39. Self, E. (2015). Who speaks for the fish: the tragedy of Europe’s Common Fisheries Policy. Vand. J. Transnat’l L., 48, 577.Google Scholar
  40. Sissenwine, M., & Symes, D. (2007). Reflections on the common fisheries policy. In report to the general directorate for fisheries and maritime affairs of the European commission. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/denmark/press/rapporter-og-dokumenter/reflections-on-the-common-fish.pdf. Brussel.
  41. Smith, M. (2004). Toward a theory of EU foreign policy-making: Multi-level governance, domestic politics, and national adaptation to Europe’s common foreign and security policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 740−758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SOCIOEC. (2013). Report on governance and stakeholder involvement in fisheries and analysis of EU policy framework. Socio-economic effects of management measures of the future CFP (Socioec) project Deliverable. Marine Law and Ocean Policy Research Services Limited.Google Scholar
  43. Spicker, P. (1991). The principle of subsidiarity and the social policy of the European Community. Journal of European Social Policy, 1, 3−14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stange, K. (2017). Knowledge production at boundaries: An inquiry into collaboration to make management plans for European fisheries. Wageningen University and Research. Environmental Policy Group. PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  45. Stockhausen, B. (this volume). How the implementation of the Landing Obligation was weakened. In S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ulrich, S.J. Kennelly (Eds.), The European Landing Obligation – Reducing discards in complex, multi-species and multi-jurisdictional fisheries. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Symes, D. (2012). Regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy: Context, content and controversy. Maritime Studies, 11: 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trapman, B., & Kraan, M.L. (2015). Aanpassingen visserijgedrag en -techniek in de tongvisserij in verband met de aanlandplicht. IMARES report C142/15.Google Scholar
  48. van Hoof, L. (2010a). Co-management: an alternative to enforcement? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67.Google Scholar
  49. van Hoof, L. (2010b). Who rules the waves? Governance and new institutional arrangements in Dutch Fisheries Management in the context of the European Common Fisheries Policy. PhD Thesis. Environmental Policy Group. Wageningen University, Wageningen.Google Scholar
  50. van Hoof, L., & Kraus, G. (2017). Is there a need for a new governance model for regionalised Fisheries Management? Implications for science and advice. Marine Policy, 84, 152–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Hoof, L., van Leeuwen, J., van Tatenhove, J. (2012). All at Sea; regionalisation and integration of Marine Policy in Europe. Maritime Studies, 11, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Hoof, L., & van Tatenhove, J. (2009). EU marine policy on the move: the tension between fisheries and maritime policy. Marine Policy, 33, 726–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Leeuwen, J., van Hoof, L., van Tatenhove, J. (2012). Institutional ambiguity in implementing the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine Policy, 36, 636−643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Tatenhove, J. (2003). Multi-Level Governance and the ‘institutional void’: The interplay between front stage and backstage politics. In Workshop 21 ‘Assessing Emergent Forms of Governance: European Public Policies Beyond the ‘Institutional Void”, ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  55. Viðarsson, J., Guðjónsson, Þ., Sigurðardóttir, S. (2015). Report on current practices in the handling of unavoidable, unwanted catches. Project Deliverable, Strategies for the gradual elimination of discards in European fisheries, Discardless project.Google Scholar
  56. Villasante, S., Pierce, G.J., Pita, C., Guimeráns, C.P., Rodrigues, J.G., Antelo, M., et al. (2016a). Fishers’ perceptions about the EU discards policy and its economic impact on small-scale fisheries in Galicia (North West Spain). Ecological Economics, 130, 130−138.Google Scholar
  57. Villasante, S., Pita, C., Pierce, G.J., Guimeráns, C.P., Rodrigues, J.G., Antelo, M., et al. (2016b). To land or not to land: How do stakeholders perceive the zero discard policy in European small-scale fisheries? Marine Policy, 71, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zeller, D., Cashion, T., Palomares, M., Pauly, D. (2018). Global marine fisheries discards: a synthesis of reconstructed data. Fish and Fisheries, 19, 30−39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc van Hoof
    • 1
  • Marloes Kraan
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Noor M. Visser
    • 2
  • Emma Avoyan
    • 3
  • Jurgen Batsleer
    • 1
  • Brita Trapman
    • 1
  1. 1.Wageningen Marine ResearchIJmuidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Environmental Policy GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations