The Experts below are selected from a list of 5004 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Till Markus - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
masterstroke or paper tiger the reform of the eu s Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2014Co-Authors: Markus Salomon, Till Markus, Miriam DrossAbstract: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.
-
Masterstroke or paper tiger – The reform of the EU׳s Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2014Co-Authors: Markus Salomon, Till Markus, Miriam DrossAbstract: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.
-
The Law and Policy Behind the Upcoming Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 2012Co-Authors: Till Markus, Markus SalomonAbstract:The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is one of the longest standing, most integrated, and at the same time one of the most criticised of the European Union’s policies. Despite continued efforts to improve the CFP, its failure to manage stocks at economically and environmentally sustainable levels continues to threaten the functioning and legitimacy of EU Fisheries legislation. All branches of the CFP have recently been or are currently put under revision. In particular, in July 2011, the European Commission issued a reform package consisting of a proposal for new basic regulation, a reformed market organisation, and a discussion of perspectives on the EU’s external Fisheries policies. This article uses the central failings of the CFP as reference points for inquiring into the potential of the reform proposals to improve EU Fisheries governance. Pertinent political and legal aspects of the CFP are explained, analysed, and aligned with steps necessary to achieve sustainable Fisheries management.
-
Towards sustainable Fisheries subsidies: Entering a new round of reform under the Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2010Co-Authors: Till MarkusAbstract:Abstract On 22 April 2009 the European Commission published its ‘Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’. The Green Paper points out a contradiction in Policy, noting on one hand that public financial support to the Community's Fisheries sector is substantial, but on the other hand such support is often incompatible with other Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) objectives, particularly the need to reduce overcapacities. Providing an analytical framework to better understand the effects of subsidies as well as an overview of existing funding schemes under the CFP, this article aims at answering some of the questions posed by the European Commission within its Green Paper. Answers are based on two ideas: the exploitation of marine capture resources ultimately depends on the level of available fish stocks and that a large share of subsidies fuels the race to fish by inducing investment incentives for the Fisheries sector. Policies that have ignored this tend to encourage inefficient and unsustainable fishing as well as the misallocation of public funds. Although support schemes under the CFP have changed in recent years, some problematic support schemes persist. A future reform will have to continue the course taken towards sustainable and efficient approaches to supporting the Fisheries industry.
Tim Gray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
From RACs to Advisory Councils: Lessons from North Sea discourse for the 2014 reform of the European Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2014Co-Authors: Jenny Hatchard, Tim GrayAbstract:From RACs to Advisory Councils analyses the discourse of stakeholders engaged in Europe׳s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in a tier of governance known as RACs (Regional Advisory Councils) from 2004 to 2008. The analysis demonstrates a shift towards discursive sharing by participating stakeholders. This fostered inclusion but did not effect a redistribution of the power held by Europe׳s inter-governmental institutions. This more substantive change would require more, and more consistent, discursive consensus from stakeholders. With a reformed CFP for 2014, this paper considers the possibility of a future in which regional stakeholder-based Fisheries governance becomes a reality.
-
Liberal intergovernmentalism, historical institutionalism, and British and German perceptions of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2009Co-Authors: Craig Mclean, Tim GrayAbstract:The aim of this paper is to determine whether British and German sea Fisheries policies have been shaped by domestic factors or by European Union (EU) institutions. To achieve this aim, British and German perceptions of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) were compared using two alternative theories of EU integration: Moravscik's Liberal Intergovernmentalism and Pierson's Historical Institutionalism. The perceptions of three sets of respondents—Fisheries scientists, fishers, and politicians—were investigated in each country to determine whether they saw the CFP as a means of attaining their own nation's domestic Fisheries agenda (as Liberal Intergovernmentalism would argue), or as an institutional champion of European Fisheries as a whole (as might be predicted by Historical Institutionalism). The article concludes that although there were elements of both theories evident in each country's perceptions, British perceptions were more strongly indicative of Historical Institutionalism than Liberal Intergovernmentalism, and German perceptions were more strongly indicative of Liberal Intergovernmentalism than Historical Institutionalism. This difference is exemplified in Britain's euroscepticism (which sees EU institutions as obstacles to British Fisheries’ interests), and Germany's environmentalism (which sees EU institutions as synchronising with Germany's national priorities).
-
Fisheries science and sustainability in international Policy: a study of failure in the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2005Co-Authors: Tim GrayAbstract:Within the European Union, scientific Fisheries research and advice is passed down a chain of central European institutions before being incorporated into Policy. However, advice is often poorly or only partially implemented and the system has largely failed to achieve sustainable Fisheries management. This paper aims to explain why, by examining the use of Fisheries science within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The problem is examined with respect to both the political system and Fisheries science, to show that the factors in both the supply, and the subsequent use, of scientific data inhibit effective Fisheries management.
-
the 2002 reform of the Common Fisheries Policy s system of governance rhetoric or reality
Marine Policy, 2003Co-Authors: Tim Gray, Jenny HatchardAbstract:Abstract The 2002 Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was claimed to be a radical overhaul of a failing system. Several EU fish stocks—particularly North Sea cod—had reached dangerously low levels, and there was widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which the CFP was operating. The European Commission took the opportunity of the legal requirement to review some features of the CFP (principally access provisions) in 2002, to undertake a broader reappraisal of the CFP. One of the features of this reappraisal was an attempt to improve the CFP's system of governance by increasing the amount of stakeholder participation, decentralisation, transparency, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. In this paper, the conclusion is reached that this attempt to improve the quality of governance in the 2002 CFP reform package has been more rhetorical than real.
-
Stakeholders and the reform of the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy: the institutionalisation of a consultation culture?
Maritime Studies, 2003Co-Authors: Jenny Hatchard, Tim GrayAbstract:The European Union's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has recently undergone a dramatic process of reinvention, or so it would seem. In the two decades, or thereabouts, of its existence much criticism has been levelled at the CFP for its failure to effectively keep pace with changing social, economic and, more particularly, environmental circumstances. A key flaw,identified as contributing to this failure of the Policy, was the highly centralised, top-down and coercive nature of the CFP. The recent reform process sought to counter these criticisms by conducting a consultation exercise with Fisheries stakeholders regarding the content of the reform package. Informed by insights into stakeholders' perceptions of European management of Fisheries gathered through our own consultation conducted in the UK and the Netherlands, this paper applies theoretical conceptualisations of 'stakeholders; and the relationships between them, to the empirical context of the reform of the CFP. Our discussion of the power dynamics between stakeholder groups suggests that the institutionalisation of a consultation culture, via provisions made for Regional Advisory Councils, has not overcome prevailing norms in the CFP.
Miriam Dross - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
masterstroke or paper tiger the reform of the eu s Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2014Co-Authors: Markus Salomon, Till Markus, Miriam DrossAbstract: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.
-
Masterstroke or paper tiger – The reform of the EU׳s Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2014Co-Authors: Markus Salomon, Till Markus, Miriam DrossAbstract: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.
Jesper Raakjær - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Common Fisheries Policy
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2020Co-Authors: Troels Jacob Hegland, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is rooted in the Treaty of Rome. After its completion in 1983, the Policy framework was gradually reformed through decennial reviews in 1993, 2003, and 2014. Due to geopolitical, physiographic, and historical reasons, the EU implementation of the CFP is most developed in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, and less developed in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. However, the CFP applies throughout European Union (EU) waters, which that are treated as a “Common pond.” The CFP has been heavily contested since its introduction, and over long periods was characterized as a management system in crisis. Historically, the CFP has arguably struggled to perform and the Policy’s ability to meet its objectives has not unCommonly been undermined by factors such as internally contradictory decisions and inefficient implementation. Since the turn of the century, the Policy has changed its course by incrementally institutionalizing principles for a more environmentally orientated and scientifically based Fisheries management approach. In general, in the latest decade, Fisheries have become increasingly sustainable in both environmental and economic terms. An increasing number of fish stocks under the CFP are being exploited at sustainable levels—a development that is likely to continue, as fish stocks are coming to be more Commonly managed along the lines of science-based multi-annual management plans. Consequently, many fishing fleets, particularly those deployed in northern waters, have shown good economic performance in recent years. This development has been further facilitated by the introduction of market-based management principles; in most member states these have been implemented by granting de facto ownership to fishing rights for free in the name of ecological and economic sustainability. This has, however, in many cases also led to huge wealth generation for a small privileged group of large-scale fishers at the expense of small-scale Fisheries and smaller fishing communities, as well as society at large; this situation has led to calls for both a fairer distribution of fishing rights—to protect the small-scale sector—and for a resource rent or exploitation fee to be collected for the benefit of society at large, which is the true owner of fishing resources. Consequently, social sustainability, understood as the improved well-being of fishing communities and a fairer sharing out of the benefits derived from Fisheries resources, should be a subject for the CFP to consider in the future.
-
Decentralising: The implementation of regionalisation and co-management under the post-2013 Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Søren Qvist Eliasen, Troels Jacob Hegland, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:Abstract 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.
-
What does ‘regionalisation’ mean? An exploratory mapping of opinions on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
Maritime Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Troels Jacob Hegland, Kristen Ounanian, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:Regionalisation has in recent years been intensely discussed as a possible path for the future Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. However, the motivations for moving in this direction are as varied as the perceptions of what regionalisation as a mode governance would entail in practice. To draw implications for Policy, we explore these perceptions and seek, by means of interviews and a survey of participants in the Regional Advisory Councils with hands-on experience in regional cooperation in European Fisheries management, to flesh out the question whether regionalisation is seen a good idea, why or why not, and how people perceive different models of regionalisation. The article documents and substantiates the widespread interest in regionalisation, but it also highlights the need to develop Common understandings of which options of regionalisation are available and what they offer in terms of future benefits and challenges.
-
Introduction: regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy
Maritime Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Jesper Raakjær, Troels Jacob HeglandAbstract:The idea of putting together a special issue of MAST on the issue of regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), was born in late 2010. Having participated in an EU funded research project looking into how an eco-system based approach to Fisheries management could be operationalised in the European Union (EU) with particular focus on regionalisation, we found that the coming reform of the CFP would be a good opportunity to make a substantial contribution on the topic of regionalisation, which we felt ought to be a central component of the reform discussions.
-
Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy
Maritime Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Troels Jacob Hegland, Kristen Ounanian, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:The concept of regionalisation, as it has been employed in connection with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is both ambiguous and multidimensional in the sense that it can have different meanings to different people and subsumes several discussions under one heading. Similarly, the perceived benefits of regionalisation can vary. In this article we develop a conceptual framework, which allows structuring of different, perceived benefits of regionalisation according to various objectives of CFP governance, as well as disentangling the different sub-themes that the discussion of regionalisation subsumes: the questions of ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘whom’. Eventually, we present a suite of five different models of regionalisation—‘archetypes’—that we believe are representations of important perspectives on what regionalisation means in practice and might facilitate a structured discussion of where the European Union should be heading in relation to Fisheries governance: ‘Nationalisation’, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Marine Management Organisations’, and ‘Cooperative Member State Councils’.
Troels Jacob Hegland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Common Fisheries Policy
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 2020Co-Authors: Troels Jacob Hegland, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is rooted in the Treaty of Rome. After its completion in 1983, the Policy framework was gradually reformed through decennial reviews in 1993, 2003, and 2014. Due to geopolitical, physiographic, and historical reasons, the EU implementation of the CFP is most developed in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, and less developed in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. However, the CFP applies throughout European Union (EU) waters, which that are treated as a “Common pond.” The CFP has been heavily contested since its introduction, and over long periods was characterized as a management system in crisis. Historically, the CFP has arguably struggled to perform and the Policy’s ability to meet its objectives has not unCommonly been undermined by factors such as internally contradictory decisions and inefficient implementation. Since the turn of the century, the Policy has changed its course by incrementally institutionalizing principles for a more environmentally orientated and scientifically based Fisheries management approach. In general, in the latest decade, Fisheries have become increasingly sustainable in both environmental and economic terms. An increasing number of fish stocks under the CFP are being exploited at sustainable levels—a development that is likely to continue, as fish stocks are coming to be more Commonly managed along the lines of science-based multi-annual management plans. Consequently, many fishing fleets, particularly those deployed in northern waters, have shown good economic performance in recent years. This development has been further facilitated by the introduction of market-based management principles; in most member states these have been implemented by granting de facto ownership to fishing rights for free in the name of ecological and economic sustainability. This has, however, in many cases also led to huge wealth generation for a small privileged group of large-scale fishers at the expense of small-scale Fisheries and smaller fishing communities, as well as society at large; this situation has led to calls for both a fairer distribution of fishing rights—to protect the small-scale sector—and for a resource rent or exploitation fee to be collected for the benefit of society at large, which is the true owner of fishing resources. Consequently, social sustainability, understood as the improved well-being of fishing communities and a fairer sharing out of the benefits derived from Fisheries resources, should be a subject for the CFP to consider in the future.
-
Decentralising: The implementation of regionalisation and co-management under the post-2013 Common Fisheries Policy
Marine Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Søren Qvist Eliasen, Troels Jacob Hegland, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:Abstract 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.
-
What does ‘regionalisation’ mean? An exploratory mapping of opinions on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy
Maritime Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Troels Jacob Hegland, Kristen Ounanian, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:Regionalisation has in recent years been intensely discussed as a possible path for the future Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. However, the motivations for moving in this direction are as varied as the perceptions of what regionalisation as a mode governance would entail in practice. To draw implications for Policy, we explore these perceptions and seek, by means of interviews and a survey of participants in the Regional Advisory Councils with hands-on experience in regional cooperation in European Fisheries management, to flesh out the question whether regionalisation is seen a good idea, why or why not, and how people perceive different models of regionalisation. The article documents and substantiates the widespread interest in regionalisation, but it also highlights the need to develop Common understandings of which options of regionalisation are available and what they offer in terms of future benefits and challenges.
-
Introduction: regionalising the Common Fisheries Policy
Maritime Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Jesper Raakjær, Troels Jacob HeglandAbstract:The idea of putting together a special issue of MAST on the issue of regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), was born in late 2010. Having participated in an EU funded research project looking into how an eco-system based approach to Fisheries management could be operationalised in the European Union (EU) with particular focus on regionalisation, we found that the coming reform of the CFP would be a good opportunity to make a substantial contribution on the topic of regionalisation, which we felt ought to be a central component of the reform discussions.
-
Why and how to regionalise the Common Fisheries Policy
Maritime Studies, 2012Co-Authors: Troels Jacob Hegland, Kristen Ounanian, Jesper RaakjærAbstract:The concept of regionalisation, as it has been employed in connection with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), is both ambiguous and multidimensional in the sense that it can have different meanings to different people and subsumes several discussions under one heading. Similarly, the perceived benefits of regionalisation can vary. In this article we develop a conceptual framework, which allows structuring of different, perceived benefits of regionalisation according to various objectives of CFP governance, as well as disentangling the different sub-themes that the discussion of regionalisation subsumes: the questions of ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘whom’. Eventually, we present a suite of five different models of regionalisation—‘archetypes’—that we believe are representations of important perspectives on what regionalisation means in practice and might facilitate a structured discussion of where the European Union should be heading in relation to Fisheries governance: ‘Nationalisation’, ‘Regional Fisheries Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Fisheries Co-Management Organisations’, ‘Regional Marine Management Organisations’, and ‘Cooperative Member State Councils’.