53
– Under the 2002 CFP reform, a system of Regional Advisory Councils was established that included the Baltic Sea RAC. The RACs are a mainstay of the EU’s
revised CFP. They are meant to satisfy stakeholders’ demands for better involvement and thereby reduce defi cits in regulatory compliance and enforcement and
enrich the decision-making process in the fi sheries through the prioritising of
stakeholders’ knowledge and experience (Linke et al. 2011 ). Whilst the RACs
mainly respond to EU and national policy proposals, they may also act on their
own initiative by proposing ways for dealing with problems, which they feel
need to be addressed. The Baltic Sea RAC, for instance, took initiative on the
issue of defi cits of control and enforcement in the Baltic cod fi shery, by coming
up with long-term management plans. It also convened a major conference in
Copenhagen on control and compliance in the Baltic Sea in March 2007 at which
a set of conclusions were drawn on how this major problem of defi cits of control
could be resolved (CEC 2009b ).
In the wake of the 2013 reform of CFP, the regionalisation of fi sheries management in the EU became more relevant and concrete (cf. Raakjær and Hegland 2012 ;
Symes 2012 ), particularly in the case of the Baltic (Hegland et al. 2015 ). This
regionalisation happened not only in fi sheries management but also in other domains
of EU marine governance (cf. Gilek and Kern 2015 ). Whilst CFP remains in charge
of fi sheries in the Baltic Sea, in 2009 a new council was formed amongst the region’s
Member States , the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH). BALTFISH was formalised in 2013 through a Memorandum of Understanding ( MoU ) between the
eight EU Member States in the region (BALTFISH 2013 ) so as to enable cooperation on Baltic Sea fi sheries management. It is empowered through delegated or
implemented acts from the EU Commission (Council and Parliament 2013 ). As
stated in Article 18(2) of the basic regulation , Member States of the region ‘shall
cooperate with one another in formulating joint recommendations’ and ‘consult the
Advisory Councils’ (ACs, the former RACs), whilst the Commission facilitates the
possibility of other relevant scientifi c bodies contributing (ibid., 38). Due to the
innovative and proactive approach established with BALTFISH, the Baltic fi sheries
context has been held up as a forerunner and role model by the previous
Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, for how
regionalisation of fi sheries management could be implemented across Europe.
3.3 Insights into Risk Assessment–Risk Management
Interaction and Stakeholder Communication Processes
This section presents the results of our case study primarily based on qualitative
interviews carried out with different actors in the context of Baltic Sea fi sheries.
First, Sect. 3.3.1 summarises the results of the interaction between the spheres of
risk assessment (science) and risk management (policy). Thereafter, we present in
Sect. 3.3.2 results on communication with and amongst stakeholders.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance
– Under the 2002 CFP reform, a system of Regional Advisory Councils was established that included the Baltic Sea RAC. The RACs are a mainstay of the EU’s
revised CFP. They are meant to satisfy stakeholders’ demands for better involvement and thereby reduce defi cits in regulatory compliance and enforcement and
enrich the decision-making process in the fi sheries through the prioritising of
stakeholders’ knowledge and experience (Linke et al. 2011 ). Whilst the RACs
mainly respond to EU and national policy proposals, they may also act on their
own initiative by proposing ways for dealing with problems, which they feel
need to be addressed. The Baltic Sea RAC, for instance, took initiative on the
issue of defi cits of control and enforcement in the Baltic cod fi shery, by coming
up with long-term management plans. It also convened a major conference in
Copenhagen on control and compliance in the Baltic Sea in March 2007 at which
a set of conclusions were drawn on how this major problem of defi cits of control
could be resolved (CEC 2009b ).
In the wake of the 2013 reform of CFP, the regionalisation of fi sheries management in the EU became more relevant and concrete (cf. Raakjær and Hegland 2012 ;
Symes 2012 ), particularly in the case of the Baltic (Hegland et al. 2015 ). This
regionalisation happened not only in fi sheries management but also in other domains
of EU marine governance (cf. Gilek and Kern 2015 ). Whilst CFP remains in charge
of fi sheries in the Baltic Sea, in 2009 a new council was formed amongst the region’s
Member States , the Baltic Sea Fisheries Forum (BALTFISH). BALTFISH was formalised in 2013 through a Memorandum of Understanding ( MoU ) between the
eight EU Member States in the region (BALTFISH 2013 ) so as to enable cooperation on Baltic Sea fi sheries management. It is empowered through delegated or
implemented acts from the EU Commission (Council and Parliament 2013 ). As
stated in Article 18(2) of the basic regulation , Member States of the region ‘shall
cooperate with one another in formulating joint recommendations’ and ‘consult the
Advisory Councils’ (ACs, the former RACs), whilst the Commission facilitates the
possibility of other relevant scientifi c bodies contributing (ibid., 38). Due to the
innovative and proactive approach established with BALTFISH, the Baltic fi sheries
context has been held up as a forerunner and role model by the previous
Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki, for how
regionalisation of fi sheries management could be implemented across Europe.
3.3 Insights into Risk Assessment–Risk Management
Interaction and Stakeholder Communication Processes
This section presents the results of our case study primarily based on qualitative
interviews carried out with different actors in the context of Baltic Sea fi sheries.
First, Sect. 3.3.1 summarises the results of the interaction between the spheres of
risk assessment (science) and risk management (policy). Thereafter, we present in
Sect. 3.3.2 results on communication with and amongst stakeholders.
3 Fisheries: A Case Study of Baltic Sea Environmental Governance