Jesper Raakjær Professor and Head of Centre IFM Department of Development and Planning Faculty of Engerneering and Sci

1. Governance aspect of regionalisation Jesper Raakjær Professor and Head of Centre IFM Department of Development and Planning Faculty of Engerneering and Science Aalborg University MEFEPO

2. Regionalisation and the CFP reform • The CFP presently faces the most important challenge of its thirty years history. • The CFP must set out the common aims and objectives, but should provide provision for transferring responsibility for much of the detailed management to the regions and the industry. • Regionalising (decentralising) management by establish a geographical framework synonymous with the major marine ecosystems of the European seas should (but will unfortunately not) be an essential element of the reform. MEFEPO

3. What is regionalisation: • Regionalisationfeatures potentially two elements: the ‘moving down’ and the ‘moving out’ of fisheries management and decision-making authorities currently held by the central level EU institutions. • ‘Moving down’ refers to the fact that regionalisation responds to the concern of the limited efficiency and effectiveness of the cfp by relieving the central eu level institutions of tasks by enabling lower level authorities to step in and design more tailor-made management for particular seas/fisheries. • ‘Moving out’ refers to the potential of regionalisation leading to increased involvement of stakeholders in the fisheries management process by transferring authorities from pure public institutions to public-private cooperative institutions or the fisheries sector itself. MEFEPO

4. Four key elements for effective regionalisation • Provide opportunities for MS to work together informally and with the help of the region's Advisory Council to develop a long term ecosystem based strategy for managing the region's fisheries. • Create a robust system for coordinating scientific and stakeholder advice and agreeing specific actions to be undertaken by MSs to improve fisheries management within their regional sea. • Forge strong links between the regional strategy, long term management plans and industry led annual fishing plans to ensure coherent management. • Integrate regional fisheries management plans with environmental policies supporting the shift towards holistic ecosystem based management and enabling policies to cover all sectors and activities at the scale of the marine ecosystem.

5. Efficiency Regionalisation helps the system to… * Cope with lengthy co-decision procedure * Focus the EU central level on principles* Facilitate EBFM and integration of policies Process legitimacy Regionalisation helps to… * Bring decisions closer to stakeholders* Provide better match between those making decisions and those implementing them Effectiveness / output legitimacyRegionalisation helps to… * Allow more tailor-made management* Incorporate local / stakeholder knowledge* Develop ‘best practices’* Provide for coherent integration of policies Practical reasons to regionalise the CFP

6. How to? The many sub-discussions… To whom to regionalise? Regional coastal states vsAll states fishing in the region Stakeholders vs Governments Industry stakeholders vsNon-industry stakeholders Where to regionalise? The RAC regionsvsAnother regional structure What to regionalise? Fisheries management tasksvsMarine management tasks Advisory powers vs Decision-making powers

7. Challenges of operating a regional system Maintaining a level playing field Keeping it democratic Ensuring loyal implementation Keeping it transparent and cost-efficient “A policy that promotes and establishes common rules that we have to obey, for a space that is public domain, must be seen as a strength. The application of uniform processes and common rules can only be questionable in its results, not in its principles”(Women’s representative, 2009) “There is still an issue with the democratic control of decisions, and I haven’t really figured out a way to deal with that in a clear way, because I can see all kind of regional bodies existing, taking decisions on a sea basin level, but I don’t really see how that is, that will be related to the parliament or to people voting or to citizens raising their voices” (Researcher, 2009) “The only way to take any decision, even a technical, on a regional level is by making it a member state responsibility but then how do we ensure that member states are in fact obliged to deliver at this regional level without creating a whole new bureaucracy” (Manager, 2009) “So who is taking a decision on this topic? Is that the government of the country? Is that the regional body of the sea? Or is that the EU that’s setting the overall guidelines? So you add a layer in that decision making and you really have to think whether that additional layer will take away the weaknesses of this top-down bureaucratic system that we have now” (Researcher, 2009)

8. Regionalisation to avoid the micro-management trap EU level institutions sets clear principles and long-term objectives, e.g. fisheries should be sustainable (biological, economic and social) e.g. stocks exploited at MSY level and the discard ban. • Co-management by consultation: e.g. the RAC model, but all decisions are taken by EU institutions • Regional level develops implementation plans and guidelines tailored to regional conditions, which must demonstrate to EU that implementation plans are in accordance to principles and long-term objectives • Co-management by partnership: where regional member states, stakeholders and users cooperate in developing implementation plans MEFEPO

9. Regionalisation to avoid the micro-management trap (2) • Result-based management to make implementation plans into realities and users/industry more accountable • Industry self-management with reversal of the burden of proof: where regional member states devolve practical implementation to users/industry, who must demonstrate that fishing, is conducted in accordance to the regional implementation plans. Lild strand MEFEPO

10. MEFEPO Models for regionalisation emerging from MEFEPO REGIONALISATION ? • “Consultation’ Methods” •  Observations • 4 RAC meetings and 4 conferences with regionalisation on the agenda •  Key-informant interviews • 20 interviews: 2 researchers, 5 managers, 3 policy-makers, 10 stakeholders (8 of which were from the fishing industry) •  Study of Documents • Relevant documents on CFP reform, incl. selected position papers submitted in connection with the consultation on the 2009 Green Paper •  Survey • 134 respondents (41%) from a population of 329 participants in selected RAC meetings held in 2009 (Pelagic, North Sea, NWW, SWW) • Stakeholder workshop • To propose an institutional structure for to a regionalised CFP

11. MEFEPO Models for regionalisation emerging from MEFEPO REGIONALISATION ? • Different models • Nationalisation • Regional Fisheries Management Organisations • Regional Fisheries Co-management Organisations • Regional Marine Management Organisations • Cooperative Members State Councils (Mini council at regional level)

12. MEFEPO 25% of North Sea respondents chose Coop. Member State Councils as top choice, but equally as many chose it as ‘Least Desirable’. Same story in other ‘regional’ RACs but less pronounced… REGIONALISATION ? Headline Possible subheader Text The two variations of regional fisheries organisation models scoredrelativelyhigh in all ’regional’ RACs—in particular the co-management solution MEFEPO

13. Decentralised Fisheries Management Board- One solution on how to institutionalise regionalisation de facto decision-making power MEFEPO

14. The role of the DFMB • DFMB would address fisheries management issues specific to their geographic area, fisheries or stocks. • MS with fishing interests in a regional sea or migratory stocks would become members of the respective DFMB. • The mandate of the DFMBs would be to draft implementation strategies, including LTMPs, design implementation of the discard ban and become de factoinvolved in drafting proposals for the regional sea • The DFMBmodel would allow regions to calibrate to their situation, providing a high degree of flexibility despite based on de facto delegation of authority. • The exact extent to which stakeholders’ input is given weight in the recommendations is up to each regional DFMB (case‐by‐case basis). • The Commission will remain the approving authority and will be responsible for auditing in accordance to the principles and long-term objectives that have been decided by the EU. MEFEPO

15. Marine Governance and regionalsation 3 1 5 4 5 6

16. Crowed Sea of (environmental) policies • The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and reform • Birds and Habitat Directives • Demarcation of Natura 2000 sites • Water Framework Directive • Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) • Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) • Draft directive of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and Integrated Coastal Management • The future "EU 2020" Strategy (Growth and jobs) and Marine and Maritime Agenda for growth and jobs ( “the Limassol Declaration”)

17. Maritime Affairs and Fishing Transport NAVIGATION FISHING • Transport policies • Waterborne transport: maritime transport (objectives, market, port infrastructure, working conditions, safety, environment, security) • Transport + energy + environment: atmospheric pollution, pollution from ships, safety (bunker; oil spill, TBT) • External relations: enlargement, non-EU countries • Port Infrastructure: efficiency, ship-generated waste, security • Maritime policies • Financing fisheries sector • Management of resources • External relations Commission Parliament Council Other Commission Parliament Council Other European Investment Bank; European Maritime Safety Agency; Community Fisheries Control Agency Committee on fisheries Agriculture and fisheries DG MARE DG MOVE DG MARE Committee on transport and tourism Transport, tele-communications, energy European Investment Bank; European Maritime Safety Agency; Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation Energy OFFSHORE WIND OIL & GAS COASTAL TOURISM Regional policy Enterprise • Energy policy: renewable energy (promotion offshore wind energy) • Supplies and stocks • Actions in support of tourism • Political framework • Competitive tourism • Sustainable tourism Commission Parliament Council Other Committee on industry, research, energy European Investment Bank; AGORES (renewable related); Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation DG ENER DG CLIMA Transport, tele-communications, energy ENVIRONMENT Sustainable development (sustainable aquaculture; integration of environmental requirements in CFP). Water protection (WFD; quality of shellfish waters; marine pollution). Nature and biodiversity (fisheries; integrated maritime policy; marine resources; marine fauna, flora). General (marine data collection) FISHING Climate change, reduce GHG (cleaner transport, promote maritime transport). Sustainable development (integration transport + environment). Air pollution (reduction atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships). Water protection (marine pollution; discharge of substances) . Waste (ship dismantling, ship-generated waste, dredged material) NAVIAGATION OFFSHORE WIND Climate change, reduce GHG (less polluting energy, renewable energy). General (environmental management – EIA, EMAS) General (environmental management – EIA, EMAS). Waste management – removal offshore oil and gas installations. Water protection (marine pollution; discharge of substances) OIL & GAS COASTAL TOURISM Sustainable development (sustainable tourism; management of coastal zones). Water protection (WFD; bathing water quality; regional waters; marine pollution; discharge of substances . Soil protection (coastal zones) OTHER Cooperation with 3rd countries: Mediterranean; Baltic sea; International conventions

18. Consumer • Food safety • Public health • Climate change • Coastal management • EEA (coast, tourism, transport, energy) • International relations • Marine strategy • Nature and biodiversity • Water protection • Maritime transport: • Shipping (competition, free movement, harmonization, international relations, market, safety) • Civil protection and environmental accidents • EU in the UN (oceans and law of the sea) • Euro-Mediterranean partnership • External relations (environmental protection; non-EU countries; commercial aid) • Neighbourhood policy DG SANCO DG ECHO DG MOVE DG EEAS DG ENV • Biotechnology • Citizen protection • CORDIS • Energy • Environment/sustainability • Health and consumer protection • Industrial technologies • Scientific support for fisheries • Sustainable maritime transport • Technological studies • Environmental protection • External relations • Financing fisheries sector • Maritime policies • Maritime safety • Resource management DG RTD DG MARE CFP, MSFD, BHDs & IMP JRC DG COMP DG ENER DG REGIO DG ENTR • Oil and gas (supplies and stocks) • Aid fisheries sector • Fishing industry (economic support) • Maritime transport (freedom, competition, aid transport, aid shipbuilding) • Biotechnology • Maritime industry (shipbuilding/naval construction; foodstuff) • Space policy (global monitoring) • Tourism • Baltic sea/Adriatic/Atlantic/Azores • Coastal zones • Environment • Fisheries fund • Research and innovation • Shipbuilding • Sustainable use of fisheries • Transport • Tourism DG EMPL DG JUST DG HOME • Working conditions (safety at work) • Criminal matters • Drugs • Free movement of persons • Terrorism DG COMP: Competition DG ENTR: Enterprise and Industry DG MARE: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries DG ECHO: Humanitarian Aid DG ENV: Environment DG MOVE: Mobility and Transport DG EEAS: Foreign Policy Instruments Service DG HOME: Home Affairs DG REGIO: Regional Policy DG EMPL: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion DG JRC: Joint Research Centre DG RTD: Research and Innovation DG ENER: Energy DG JUST: Justice DG SANCO: Health and Consumers

19. MSFD Governance Challenges • Despite this recognition for the need to organise regional cooperation and coordination and efforts undertaken by the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs), the MSFD itself does not provide any specific legal framework nor specifies governing structures to ensure cooperation and coordination at the regional sea level between MSs. • Furthermore, the MSFD does not provide guidance on how to ensure genuine stakeholder participation in the implementation process. MSFD alludes in several instances to “involvement of interested parties, but it does not as such elaborate a strategy of public consultation nor does it specify a specific inclusion of stakeholders in the several phases of the implementation of the MSFD. • From an institutional perspective the MSFD is faced with great challenges and the present implementation characterised by an almost endless stream of ad hoc solutions in a policy environment of institutional ambiguity and unclear division of competencies and responsibilities.

20. Marine Governance Challenges From a governance there is an urgent need to support and contribute to improve marine management (policy-making and implementation) We need to analyse and understand: • The institutional setting at the regional level; • Multi-level, cross sectorial integrated policies; • The use of knowledge in marine management; • Stakeholder engagement and involvement across scales and sectors; • Geo-politics associated to marine recourses • E.g. Dispute over mackerel or accessto marine minerals • Blue growth vs. marine conservation; • Marine Spatial Planning, including access and rights to space; • Creating boundaries at Sea? (fencing the seascape)

21. Thank you for the attention! If you have an interest in knowing more about Regionalisation and the CFP please consult the open source journal Maritime Studies for its Special issue: Towards Regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy? http://www.maritimestudiesjournal.com/series/TRCFP

22. Future governance structure?- several options!