54
3.3.1 Interactions between Risk Assessment and Risk
Management
Interactions between the spheres of risk assessment and risk management are crucial for any successful risk governance process. Results from risk assessment have
to be translated and transformed into manageable actions and decisions, a process
that is often complicated by the complexity and uncertainty of the subject matter. A
successful link between risk assessment and risk management is often based on
transparent communication and open dialogue . Conversely, unsatisfactory risk management results are often due to communication and interaction problems between
the two spheres. The following sections analyse the interaction processes between
those two spheres in the context of fi sheries’ management in the Baltic Sea.
In general, our interviews addressed questions pertaining to decision-making
structure for fi sheries’ management and, closely related to that, regionalisation.
Regionalisation refers to changes in CFP’s decision-making structure. Divergent
views exist as to whether regional bodies should work merely consultatively or if
they should also receive decision-making powers. These issues are important given
the context of the new CFP reform process and its implementation (especially
regarding the discard ban), which occurs at the regional level of the Baltic Sea
through cooperation with and via BALTFISH. The new CFP reform process puts
ACs potentially in a more responsible role and encourages them to contribute more
proactively to management plans and increase coordination and collaboration with
the Member States in the specifi c region. A failure of ACs and Member States to do
so would result in the EU reverting back to traditional top-down management processes. Increased coordination would serve as an incentive for RACs and Member
States to intensify their roles as mentioned, for example, at a Commission seminar
on implementation of the CFP reform ( http://ec.europa.eu/fi sheries/news_and_
events/events/20131025/index_en.htm ; cf. Linke and Bruckmeier 2015 ). The Baltic
Sea is one area where CFP reform could be implemented because a cooperative
Member State forum, namely, BALTFISH, already exists, which could facilitate
integration and harmonisation of stakeholders.
All of our interviewed actors, regardless of their institutional affi liation, supported a stronger emphasis on regionalisation . However, different views existed on
how far regionalisation should go, how it can and should be implemented and what
the real objectives of this regionalisation process should be. In discussing the prospects for regionalising CFP, Symes ( 2012 ) fears the EU would be in legal limbo and
hence the regionalisation process would end with ‘a note of frustration’, i.e. ‘that
regionalising the CFP will be decided on legal and procedural grounds rather than
from a perspective of good governance and what is best for the fi sheries’ (Symes
2012 , 19).
None of the interviewees from science, industry, policy-making or the NGO sectors wanted to transfer decision-making power to the regional level alone. Although
many of the actors would like to see more decision-making power transferred to the
regional level, the lack of any involvement of institutions at EU level was seen to be
P. Sellke et al.
3.3.1 Interactions between Risk Assessment and Risk
Management
Interactions between the spheres of risk assessment and risk management are crucial for any successful risk governance process. Results from risk assessment have
to be translated and transformed into manageable actions and decisions, a process
that is often complicated by the complexity and uncertainty of the subject matter. A
successful link between risk assessment and risk management is often based on
transparent communication and open dialogue . Conversely, unsatisfactory risk management results are often due to communication and interaction problems between
the two spheres. The following sections analyse the interaction processes between
those two spheres in the context of fi sheries’ management in the Baltic Sea.
In general, our interviews addressed questions pertaining to decision-making
structure for fi sheries’ management and, closely related to that, regionalisation.
Regionalisation refers to changes in CFP’s decision-making structure. Divergent
views exist as to whether regional bodies should work merely consultatively or if
they should also receive decision-making powers. These issues are important given
the context of the new CFP reform process and its implementation (especially
regarding the discard ban), which occurs at the regional level of the Baltic Sea
through cooperation with and via BALTFISH. The new CFP reform process puts
ACs potentially in a more responsible role and encourages them to contribute more
proactively to management plans and increase coordination and collaboration with
the Member States in the specifi c region. A failure of ACs and Member States to do
so would result in the EU reverting back to traditional top-down management processes. Increased coordination would serve as an incentive for RACs and Member
States to intensify their roles as mentioned, for example, at a Commission seminar
on implementation of the CFP reform ( http://ec.europa.eu/fi sheries/news_and_
events/events/20131025/index_en.htm ; cf. Linke and Bruckmeier 2015 ). The Baltic
Sea is one area where CFP reform could be implemented because a cooperative
Member State forum, namely, BALTFISH, already exists, which could facilitate
integration and harmonisation of stakeholders.
All of our interviewed actors, regardless of their institutional affi liation, supported a stronger emphasis on regionalisation . However, different views existed on
how far regionalisation should go, how it can and should be implemented and what
the real objectives of this regionalisation process should be. In discussing the prospects for regionalising CFP, Symes ( 2012 ) fears the EU would be in legal limbo and
hence the regionalisation process would end with ‘a note of frustration’, i.e. ‘that
regionalising the CFP will be decided on legal and procedural grounds rather than
from a perspective of good governance and what is best for the fi sheries’ (Symes
2012 , 19).
None of the interviewees from science, industry, policy-making or the NGO sectors wanted to transfer decision-making power to the regional level alone. Although
many of the actors would like to see more decision-making power transferred to the
regional level, the lack of any involvement of institutions at EU level was seen to be
P. Sellke et al.