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.

Highlights

  • Since its inception in the 1980s, the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) has been reformed more or less every 10 years (1992, 2002, 2013)

  • The Landing Obligation (LO) is introduced in a complex process that takes place at multiple levels in the EU governance system: (1) the general policy has been described in the reformed CFP in Article 15; (2) the details have to be filled in at the regional level in multi-annual plans or discard plans by groups of Member States; (3) for each Member State, the implementation process is discussed with

  • In the CFP, the wider goal of the LO is formulated, but the operationalisation of the policy into concrete measures is developed over time. This will allow for adaptation of the LO to local and regional circumstances and practices. In principle these three developments added to a multi-level governance structure, contributing to improved subsidiarity; in theory it emphasises decentralisation and diversity resulting in policy implementation that is as close to fishing practices as possible (Spicker 1991)

Read more

Summary

Avoyan Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

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

Introduction
Muddying the Waters of the Landing Obligation
Fisheries Management, Subsidiarity and Multi-level Governance
A Short History of the EU Landing Obligation
The Implementation of the Landing Obligation in Dutch Fisheries
The Landing Obligation is impossible to implement
The Muddy Waters of Multi-level Governance
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call