SEAwise Report on evaluation of alternative management measures from a governance perspective
The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishers, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management. This SEAwise report describes the research in the SEAwise project on effective fisheries governance. Fisheries governance encompasses the comprehensive system of politics, policies, laws, norms, values, regulations, and institutions that direct the management and preservation of fishery resources. The report covers the study of the effectiveness of, and potential for, improving governance at the regional and at sub-regional level of the SEAwise regional seas (Baltic Sea, North Sea, Western Waters, and the Mediterranean Sea).
The work followed two separate strings of research intended to, first and foremost, provide better understanding for SEAwise of the stakeholder perceptions of fisheries governance, as it takes place in Europe currently, and, in addition, test and illustrate different ways of gathering information on the broad palette of issues under the umbrella of governance.
The first string of research involved an online survey at the level of the SEAwise regional seas to explore the perceptions of how people and organisations work with one another and the challenges they face. This would provide insights into key elements of governance: legitimacy, trust, learning and coordination/cooperation.
Attaining a sufficient number of replies proved challenging, and the survey ended up suffering from a combination of a relatively low response rate (below 17%) and a relatively low overall number of completed surveys (total of 44), especially taking into consideration the original intention to break down and also analyse the survey responses by regions and/or further between different groups (fisheries interests, eNGOs, etc.) to be able to score governance performance from various perspectives. The explanation is likely found in a combination of a) the survey being perceived as not having direct policy impact; b) the survey being perceived as too long and/or complex, and – maybe in particular - general stakeholder fatigue. The main implication of the low response rate and low number of responses collected overall is that it is not possible - as was the intention - to make a meaningful matrix with scores (‘traffic light approach’ or similar) for different aspects of governance broken down for comparison across regions or stakeholder groups.
The number of responses was highest in the Mediterranean Sea where 20 responses were collected with a relatively good spread of types of respondents and countries. Thus, we used the data from the Mediterranean Sea to pilot a ‘traffic light approach’ to present measures of governance performance, as articulated in the SEAwise Task 2.4 description.
In the second string of research, the survey was complemented by more local case studies associated with the four regional seas to better understand the multi-level dynamics of fisheries governance at a sub-regional level. In developing the local/sub-regional case studies, the task partners enjoyed a high degree of methodological freedom. The differences in approaches meant that each of the case studies contains rich and deep information, but the degree to which direct comparisons can be made and shared conclusions drawn is limited.
The North Sea/Western Waters case study examines governance processes for adopting fisheries regulations in Natura 2000 areas in the North Sea and Western Waters. It highlights stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy, focusing on input, output, and throughput aspects. The study reveals challenges in balancing environmental protection with socio-economic impacts, emphasizing the need for transparent, inclusive, and timely stakeholder consultations to ensure effective and equitable fisheries management measures.
The German-Danish (Western) Baltic case study focuses on the organizational aspects of each country’s high-level advisory commissions for fisheries governance. It highlights the importance of clear task descriptions, realistic timelines, balanced composition, and effective stakeholder involvement. The study underscores the need for well-structured secretariats and experienced leadership to navigate complex policy areas, ensuring that commissions can effectively address environmental and socio-economic challenges in fisheries management.
The Mediterranean case study of Patraikos Gulf (Greece) assesses stakeholder perceptions of fishery governance quality. The case reveals widespread dissatisfaction with governance, highlighting issues like lack of trust, top-down approaches, and insufficient stakeholder involvement. The study underscores the decline in hake stocks and ecosystem health, emphasizing the need for tailored management strategies and improved governance to address socio-economic and environmental challenges effectively.
The Mediterranean case study of the Adriatic Sea examines the establishment of Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs) to protect marine biodiversity and manage fish stocks. The governance process of establishing an FRA in the Adriatic Sea is considered transparent and operating through consensus among different actors. Engaging stakeholders from the initial FRA proposal phase and enforcing strict surveillance protocols were deemed a priority by stakeholders. The overarching result at this stage, in terms of fishery policy actions, is that with the three established FRAs, the Adriatic Sea has the highest coverage of seabed protection in the Mediterranean, a crucial goal for fisheries sustainability under Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management.
