181
8.3 Results
8.3.1 Organisational Structures of Science-Policy Interfaces
8.3.1.1 Fisheries
Fisheries management in the Baltic Sea is primarily governed by the EU through the
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The EU involves all member states around the
Baltic Sea except Russia (see Sellke et al. 2016 ). The CFP connects the scientifi c
assessments of fi sh stocks, executed on a regional basis (i.e. the Baltic Sea) by the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) , with management
decisions taken by the EU troika of the commission, the council of ministers and
the parliament. ICES works primarily for its main client, the EU Commission, and
formulates requested annual scientifi c advice based on single fi sh stock assessments. Hence, regional cooperation with other management bodies such as
HELCOM is rather weak and underdeveloped (Linke et al. 2014 ). Due to its centralised science- based structure, EU fi sheries management has been depicted as ‘perhaps the most top-down fi sheries management system on the planet’ (Degnbol and
Wilson 2008 : 189) and ‘perhaps the most science-dependent sector in the EU’
(Griffi n 2009 : 563). A strong dependency between science (in the form of annual
fi sh stock assessments and subsequent fi shing advice) and policy (in the form of
management regulations mainly using fi shing quotas) was established in modern
fi sheries management in the North Atlantic during the 1960s and 1970s (Gezelius
2008 ) and later applied to the Baltic Sea with the establishment of the CFP and an
incremental EU enlargement. The institutionalised dependence between science
and policy has been described as the ‘TAC machine’ (Nielsen and Holm 2008 ),
which suggests that the annual single fi sh stock approach to management is largely
incompatible with more holistic environmental governance concepts like multispecies management or EAM (Wilson 2009 ).
Two recent reforms of the CFP, conducted in 2002 and 2013, have aimed to
change the policy system so that there is increased involvement of stakeholders in
fi sheries management, as well as more regionalisation on a sea-basin level, including the Baltic Sea region (Sellke et al. 2016 ). The 2002 CFP reform resulted in a
new type of stakeholder organisation, namely, Regional Advisory Councils (RACs),
that included fi sheries representatives, NGOs and other interest groups (Linke et al.
2011 ). The establishment of these bodies, which give recommendations on fi sheries
management issues to the EU Commission, marked a new era, challenging the
traditional top-down management structure of the CFP. However, while RACs have
contributed signifi cantly to a more participatory and inclusive fi sheries governance
in the EU, authors such as Long ( 2010 : 294) observe that ‘the impact so far of the
RACs on decision-making within the CFP is less striking than their organisational
structure and continues to be the subject of ongoing debate’. Overall the establishment of RACs can be seen as a substantial shift towards stakeholder involvement
and potentially even a partially delegated management responsibility to the industry
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…
8.3 Results
8.3.1 Organisational Structures of Science-Policy Interfaces
8.3.1.1 Fisheries
Fisheries management in the Baltic Sea is primarily governed by the EU through the
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The EU involves all member states around the
Baltic Sea except Russia (see Sellke et al. 2016 ). The CFP connects the scientifi c
assessments of fi sh stocks, executed on a regional basis (i.e. the Baltic Sea) by the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) , with management
decisions taken by the EU troika of the commission, the council of ministers and
the parliament. ICES works primarily for its main client, the EU Commission, and
formulates requested annual scientifi c advice based on single fi sh stock assessments. Hence, regional cooperation with other management bodies such as
HELCOM is rather weak and underdeveloped (Linke et al. 2014 ). Due to its centralised science- based structure, EU fi sheries management has been depicted as ‘perhaps the most top-down fi sheries management system on the planet’ (Degnbol and
Wilson 2008 : 189) and ‘perhaps the most science-dependent sector in the EU’
(Griffi n 2009 : 563). A strong dependency between science (in the form of annual
fi sh stock assessments and subsequent fi shing advice) and policy (in the form of
management regulations mainly using fi shing quotas) was established in modern
fi sheries management in the North Atlantic during the 1960s and 1970s (Gezelius
2008 ) and later applied to the Baltic Sea with the establishment of the CFP and an
incremental EU enlargement. The institutionalised dependence between science
and policy has been described as the ‘TAC machine’ (Nielsen and Holm 2008 ),
which suggests that the annual single fi sh stock approach to management is largely
incompatible with more holistic environmental governance concepts like multispecies management or EAM (Wilson 2009 ).
Two recent reforms of the CFP, conducted in 2002 and 2013, have aimed to
change the policy system so that there is increased involvement of stakeholders in
fi sheries management, as well as more regionalisation on a sea-basin level, including the Baltic Sea region (Sellke et al. 2016 ). The 2002 CFP reform resulted in a
new type of stakeholder organisation, namely, Regional Advisory Councils (RACs),
that included fi sheries representatives, NGOs and other interest groups (Linke et al.
2011 ). The establishment of these bodies, which give recommendations on fi sheries
management issues to the EU Commission, marked a new era, challenging the
traditional top-down management structure of the CFP. However, while RACs have
contributed signifi cantly to a more participatory and inclusive fi sheries governance
in the EU, authors such as Long ( 2010 : 294) observe that ‘the impact so far of the
RACs on decision-making within the CFP is less striking than their organisational
structure and continues to be the subject of ongoing debate’. Overall the establishment of RACs can be seen as a substantial shift towards stakeholder involvement
and potentially even a partially delegated management responsibility to the industry
8 Science-Policy Interfaces in Baltic Sea Environmental Governance: Towards…